Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Announcements => Topic started by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 01:26:39 PM

Title: Starsector 0.95a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 01:26:39 PM
Blog post/download links here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2021/03/26/starsector-0-95a-release/).

Changes as of Hotfix #6 (-RC15), April 22, 2021, 3:40pm EST

Fixed an issue with the main storyline.

Changes as of Hotfix #5 (-RC14), April 21, 2021, 1:20pm EST




Changes as of Hotfix #4 (-RC12), March 30, 2021, 6:45pm EST


Changes as of Hotfix #3 (-RC11), March 29, 2021, 6:00pm EST


Changes as of Hotfix #2 (-RC10), March 27, 2021, 7:40pm EST

Changes/fixes:


Changes as of Hotfix #1 (-RC9), March 26, 2021, 9:30pm EST

Bugfixing:




Changes as of March 26, 2021

Combat:

Weapons:

Hullmods:

Modding:

Bugfixing:


Changes as of March 08, 2021

Campaign:


Pirate raids, punitive expeditions, etc:


Miscellaneous:


Combat:


Ship AI:

Ships:


Weapons/fighters:


Hullmods:


Modding:


Bugfixing:





Changes as of October 16, 2020

Campaign:

Colonies/exploration/related:

Revamped ground raid mechanics

Combat:

Ships/systems:

Weapons/fighters:

Hullmods:


Ship AI:

Miscellaneous:

Modding:

Bugfixing:
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 16, 2020, 01:30:42 PM
I literally said in another thread I felt like something was coming soon holy ***, finally the sacred text! Damn this is gonna take forever to read.

EDIT:
Quote
Added unique capital-class ship that can be acquired by the player. Good luck.
Legion LXIX here I come :O

Quote
Light Dual AC: reduced OP cost to 5 (was: 6)
But it already is 5 OP? I know the patch notes are in progress but just making sure.

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)
Railgun: increased OP cost to 8 (was: 7)
This is the only thing that I don't get. I mean we all know Light Needler wasn't worth 9 OP currently, but lowering it to 7 AND increasing Railgun to 8 seems a wee bit too much. It makes sense to me that they have the same OP cost at least, then you have an option between burst and sustained damage. With these changes Light Needler seems like a no-brainer unless I'm missing something crucial.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zuthal on October 16, 2020, 01:58:59 PM
  • Asteroid fields: chance for moderately damaging asteroid impacts on ships when not moving slowly
    • AI will move slowly through asteroid fields
  • Hyperspace storms: slow-moving fleets do not attract storm strikes
    • AI will move slowly through storms instead of trying to avoid them

Does that also apply to the player's fleet when flying to a destination under autopilot?[/list]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Botaragno on October 16, 2020, 02:02:30 PM
Quote
Onslaught:

    Reduced arc of side-facing large turrets
    Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration

Enforcer:

    Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
    Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
    Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)

YUP
IT'S LOW TECH TIME
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 02:05:30 PM
I literally said in another thread I felt like something was coming soon holy ***, finally the sacred text! Damn this is gonna take forever to read.

(Sorry but also not sorry!)

Quote
Light Dual AC: reduced OP cost to 5 (was: 6)
But it already is 5 OP? I know the patch notes are in progress but just making sure.

... is it? If it is, then I probably got mixed up at some point, but it'll be 5, regardless, whether it's a change from 6 or not.

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)
Railgun: increased OP cost to 8 (was: 7)
This is the only thing that I don't get. I mean we all know Light Needler wasn't worth 9 OP currently, but lowering it to 7 AND increasing Railgun to 8 seems a wee bit too much. It makes sense to me that they have the same OP cost at least, then you have an option between burst and sustained damage. With these changes Light Needler seems like a no-brainer unless I'm missing something crucial.

I think the Railgun is a touch better due to being a good all-arounder that's also kinetic, and the extra point reflects that. It's ok vs fighters, light armor, etc.


Does that also apply to the player's fleet when flying to a destination under autopilot?

No, but you can hold S to move slowly without overriding the laid-in course.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Draba on October 16, 2020, 02:09:00 PM
Awesome as always, can't wait to try it!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cycerin on October 16, 2020, 02:10:06 PM
Hell yeah!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 16, 2020, 02:20:04 PM
Yep. Today is a good a day.

I'll comment specifically when I have more time but there a lot of good changes in there and a lot of things are (heavily) understated. "Skill system revamp." "New enemy" "New contact system." "Story points." "Megastructure mission." Lol.

Tons of QoL improvements. I'm surprised by the "Move slowly" function but think it's a good addition. Also a (very welcome) surprise is the "historian." That's just a neat touch.

Anyway...good, great, and fantastic stuff. Can't wait to try it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cathair on October 16, 2020, 02:28:45 PM
oh god it's finally happening. I'M VERY EXCITED NOW.


It's surprising, and cool, to see so many modding additions in a patch that already has so much on its plate with reworking base game systems.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Eji1700 on October 16, 2020, 02:30:27 PM
"Moving Slowly"

Love all of it.  More depth to movement is something i've rambled about a ton, and this is exactly the kind of stuff that I was hoping for.  Intuitive changes that can make looking at the map more interactive as you figure out how to approach something, and what skills you might use to do so.

"Skill system revamp:"


Obviously hype to see how this goes.  I'm sure there will be some initial rough spots but in general i think skills systems are something that should be fun, and often aren't, so any game experimenting there is heading in the right direction in my book.

"Officers:"

Great.  Love that they're capped at 5 now, felt kinda tedious before.

"Added "personal contacts" mechanics:"


Very hype for this.  I'm hoping it gives some depth to the fleet communication/relations that exist. 

"Adjusted AI fleet compositions:"

Glad to hear this.  "ALL THE CAPITALS" felt odd in a lot of ways, but especially for pirate armadas.  Power should scale without having to just send X of the biggest thing.

"Can use a story point to recover an otherwise unrecoverable derelict ship (only applies to derelict ships found in the campaign, not during a combat encounter)

    Some ships (such as REDACTED ships when the player doesn't have the proper skill) are not recoverable this way"


Maybe i'm reading this wrong, but won't this lead to "always have 1 story point" situations because you don't know when it'll come up and matter?

"Requires fuel and heavy machinery (consumed) and an Alpha Core (not consumed
)"

In general i love the idea of expanding the uses of items like this.  Having X item in inventory lets you do Y is often decently interesting progression, especially when its something like a core that can get you in trouble.

"Pirate bases should no longer spawn in systems with neutron stars/pulsars"


Have to say i'm kinda sad to see this.  I was hoping for a more creative solution, such as making it kinda rare/special and with some wonky effects.  Something like having a few results where either they're totally unprepared so their fleets are just a mess, or they have some special feature/items that you normally wouldn't find at a pirate base so it's worth visiting, or even them being some sort of super high tech pirates so the base is actually a high tech with high tech ships sort of thing. 

"Colonies/exploration/related:"

All sounds interesting.

"Revamped ground raid mechanics"

As always love all of this for adding more depth and not just being a dialogue option you mash through.

"Combat:"


In general lots of qol and i've already talked before about how I like that buoy's are now going to introduce beginners to the idea of post combat start deployments/retreats.

"Ships/systems:"


Brawler- losing damper field feels sad.  Maybe it's more fun to pilot but it made it a great AI ship.
Onslaught- awesome.
Gemini- Interesting.  It's a favorite of my early game so i'm curious to see how it plays out.
Drover- I like this, especially more cargo nerfs in general.  The "support" section of your fleet feels incidental right now, and it really should be more of a cost.

"Weapons/fighters:"


I like basically all of this.  Feels like trying to bring things in line rather than just playing wack a mole with what's currently good. Always more interesting because it keeps fun things fun.

"Hullmods:"


As always i love anything that makes civilian ship sprites more likely to wind up on screen.  If time is going to be spent making it then it should have a reason to show up in battle even if it's niche.  Very curious how the "remove fighter bays" thing will play out.  Shield shunt also seems like it should be fun to play with.

"Ship AI:"

Quality of life heaven.

"the rest"


All good.

Can't wait until we can mess with it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nextia on October 16, 2020, 02:39:51 PM
Very nice changes, can't wait for this!  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Auraknight on October 16, 2020, 02:46:29 PM
Always excited for patchnotes! Already sending highlights to friends.

Man, the skill points system keeps getting leaner and leaner! At this rate, it might vanish entirely!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dostya on October 16, 2020, 02:52:46 PM
Quote
Improved cargo screen performance when taking or leaving a VERY large number of items

Much appreciated. Thank you.

Quote
Maximum post-Collapse colony growth limited to a maximum of colony size 6

Sick of all those systems filled with size 10s within a decade, huh? :P

Are there any plans for a story mission to break this?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Space Dynamics on October 16, 2020, 03:03:27 PM
Ohh Exciting!  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 03:10:01 PM
Thank you all!


"Pirate bases should no longer spawn in systems with neutron stars/pulsars"


Have to say i'm kinda sad to see this.  I was hoping for a more creative solution, such as making it kinda rare/special and with some wonky effects.  Something like having a few results where either they're totally unprepared so their fleets are just a mess, or they have some special feature/items that you normally wouldn't find at a pirate base so it's worth visiting, or even them being some sort of super high tech pirates so the base is actually a high tech with high tech ships sort of thing.

This mostly has to do with fleet AI just not being able to handle pulsars. If I ever have the time (ha) to dedicated to making it handle them, that might be reconsidered, but the likelihood of this seems low. It's just a complicated problem to solve. (And now that I'm talking about it, I kind of want to try. Must. Resist.)

Brawler- losing damper field feels sad.  Maybe it's more fun to pilot but it made it a great AI ship.

Yeah, that's the goal, to have a midline frigate that's fun to pilot for the player, since there wasn't one. I think the Centurion is also pretty good in the general "hard to kill frigate that works in larger fleets" role and this spreads ship roles out more nicely, but I see what you're saying in general; it's definitely a tradeoff.


Sick of all those systems filled with size 10s within a decade, huh? :P

Are there any plans for a story mission to break this?

Well, you have to admit it's a bit... unreasonable. But you get as many industries on a size 6, so mainly it's about taking the scale down a notch while keeping the options about the same.

As far as breaking the limit - no, nothing I'd call plans. I wouldn't rule it out if a story element called for it, but I don't particularly feel the need to have extra-large colonies in the game. Just that by itself doesn't feel like it adds anything and isn't a "goal", if that makes sense.

(Also, consider that there's a variety of nanoforge-like items that buff various aspects of colonies, which wasn't possible before.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dal on October 16, 2020, 03:12:05 PM
Exciting changes! Truthfully, I'm apprehensive about the new skill system because I find archetypal characters boring, but I trust there will be mods to address that. The content additions sound very enticing.  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 16, 2020, 03:12:16 PM
Sounds lovely already.
Glad you added the two phase support ships.And the bit about pirate bases no longer spawning in neutron/pulsar systems.
And the industry softcap, too!

Alex, you fixed the fleet composition so pirate fleets wouldn't have too much Atlas MKII, right? And the bounty fleets?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 03:15:31 PM
Exciting changes! Truthfully, I'm apprehensive about the new skill system because I find archetypal characters boring, but I trust there will be mods to address that. The content additions sound very enticing.  ;D

Hmm - I'm not sure how the new skill system is different from the old in that regard, really. The aptitudes are what make characters "archetypal", no?

Alex, you fixed the fleet composition so pirate fleets wouldn't have too much Atlas MKII, right? And the bounty fleets?

There's less capital ships in high end fleets, if that's what you mean (and more officers instead, to power them up some). This is mentioned in the 700+ lines of patch notes, how could you miss it?!?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dal on October 16, 2020, 03:18:52 PM
I modded the old system too, so as long as I can mod this one I'll be happy.  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 03:21:51 PM
I modded the old system too, so as long as I can mod this one I'll be happy.  ;D

Fair enough, and you sure can!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: braciszek on October 16, 2020, 03:30:19 PM
Important question...

Will there be a Champion (XIV)?

On a more serious note, will there be an improvement to the Codex such as search functions literally anytime in the future? After a couple mods, the Codex is not enough and it leaves a bit to be desired. Of course, the ability to see fighter weapon stats and compare between weapons in refit is great.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wolfyharvell on October 16, 2020, 03:31:11 PM
"Moving Slowly" -- How about Tactical Speed, Cruising Speed, or Thrusters Only for a name?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 16, 2020, 03:40:29 PM
Love most of the changes. I see a few things that could be expanded (maybe a story option to steal extra loot when you don't join in the pursuit :P) Few questions

Quote
Brawler:

    Changed ship system to Maneuvering Jets (was: Damper Field)
    Increased shield arc to 270 (was: 150)
    Increased supply cost to 6 (was: 4)
    Increased flux dissipation and capacity (200 -> 250, 2500 -> 3000)

That is a pretty big supply cost increase. How does this work for the Brawler Variants?

Quote
Onslaught:

    Reduced arc of side-facing large turrets
    Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration

How much is this? Can you still overlap one of the side facing larger turrets with the front?

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)

That is a pretty big buff. The LN was already one of the better small ballistics due to its burst and accuracy. It had the same DPS/OP as the HN (though -100 range) and the HN was one of the better medium ballistics. Do the OP changes to light AC really make up for it?

Quote
IR Pulse Laser: reduced flux cost per shot to 40 (was: 50)

Those are some pretty big changes to small ballistic weapons. -1 OP for a light AC can be translated pretty cleanly to another capacitor or distributor. Does 25% less flux on IR pulse compensate?


Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Beinsezii on October 16, 2020, 03:44:50 PM
Added "personal contacts" mechanics .....
Really looking forwards to this. The NPCs on planets always felt sorta faceless, as I never really was able to build the relation meter. Quests from the bar and similar always have you running everywhere instead of working with your one bro in your favorite command station.

Added unique capital-class ship that can be acquired by the player. Good luck.
Good luck? Good luck?

Added skill that allows recovery of REDACTED ships
Yes. Yes. Yes.

* Joining an ongoing battle, winning, and then your allies pursue: leaving (instead of joining the pursuit) will now give you salvage
* Laying in a course for a star in the hyperspace map will now lay in course for the closest jump-point into the system rather than the star's gravity well
* Added support for 4k resolutions
Lots of excellent QoL this patch! I'm a big fan of 'smoothness of operation', and I think it's worth being excited over.
\[also if 4k and/or X11 support is borked you'll definitely hear from me.\]

Added a new, very rare and powerful enemy
13 new special weapons specific to this enemy
wtf is that monstrosity. sounds like some kind of dreadnought/mobile station horror.


officially hyped. I've been looking at another Star Sector campaign after other unnamed nerdy space games have disappointed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sinistrem on October 16, 2020, 03:48:20 PM

Maximum post-Collapse colony growth limited to a maximum of colony size 6


Kinda sad about it. I agree, it felt silly to get such big colonies so quickly, but with this limit you will get to the max level even faster. Also, having all colonies limited to the same size feels a bit, i don't know, immersion breaking? You'd expect some planets to be population centers with high cap, while others to be limited to lower cap due to conditions and infrastructure (or lack thereof).

In example - planet doesn't automatically upgrade to the next level, and you have to "upgrade" infrastructure, rising the cap. Maybe make first X upgrades cost progressive amount of credits, and after a certain point require special items (similar to nanoforge), AI cores and story points. That would make colonies more diverse and defined by player choice, instead of every single colony having same population and industry limit.

Anyway, thanks for great work!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 16, 2020, 03:57:07 PM
Sick of all those systems filled with size 10s within a decade, huh? :P

Are there any plans for a story mission to break this?
Well, you have to admit it's a bit... unreasonable. But you get as many industries on a size 6, so mainly it's about taking the scale down a notch while keeping the options about the same.

As far as breaking the limit - no, nothing I'd call plans. I wouldn't rule it out if a story element called for it, but I don't particularly feel the need to have extra-large colonies in the game. Just that by itself doesn't feel like it adds anything and isn't a "goal", if that makes sense.

(Also, consider that there's a variety of nanoforge-like items that buff various aspects of colonies, which wasn't possible before.)
Is there an ingame reason for why new colonies can't grow past size 6? Because I feel like it'd be just as unreasonable if your colonies slowly but steadily grow to size 6 and then just...stop. Even after you keep playing for multiple decades.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SaberCherry on October 16, 2020, 04:01:28 PM
Goodbye, Drover, I hardly knew ye.  Let's welcome our new star, Heron!  (kidding, I'll have to try it out.)

I'm really excited about almost all of the changes - lots and lots of irritants removed (like hunting down tiny evasive fleets).  Not sure about Needler/Railguns, though.  And I suspect that without a reduction in OP the nerf to Deck Crews might be a bit harsh, and just lead to dropping it altogether (which is fine with me).

Piloting REDACTED ships sounds like fun, too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 16, 2020, 04:02:00 PM
Sure. Size is logarithmic and at some point the ability of immigration to produce new colonists is exhausted in favor of natural growth. Which is much slower. Size 6 is 1 million to 10 million and size 7 is 10 million to 100million.

Maybe you could make growth slow down to like 2% per year(or lower) but this effectively caps growth at size 7 since it would take 35 years to grow from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 04:16:53 PM
Important question...

Will there be a Champion (XIV)?

Hmm. I don't know! There isn't one right now, at least.

On a more serious note, will there be an improvement to the Codex such as search functions literally anytime in the future? After a couple mods, the Codex is not enough and it leaves a bit to be desired. Of course, the ability to see fighter weapon stats and compare between weapons in refit is great.

The Codex is super old and needs a going-over; exactly what that'll entail, I can't say, but, yeah, it just needs work.


"Moving Slowly" -- How about Tactical Speed, Cruising Speed, or Thrusters Only for a name?

Hmm - it's currently just presented as "slow-moving" in tooltip descriptions etc. I guess I could see changing it to something "cool", but, well, we'll see.

Quote
Brawler:

    Changed ship system to Maneuvering Jets (was: Damper Field)
    Increased shield arc to 270 (was: 150)
    Increased supply cost to 6 (was: 4)
    Increased flux dissipation and capacity (200 -> 250, 2500 -> 3000)

That is a pretty big supply cost increase. How does this work for the Brawler Variants?

I'm not sure what you mean. Ahh - do you mean the Pather variants? They're just, well, more expensive. I don't think this really changes much, and they're frankly quite scary at times, so it might not be unwarranted.

Quote
Onslaught:
    Reduced arc of side-facing large turrets
    Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
How much is this? Can you still overlap one of the side facing larger turrets with the front?

They overlap a lot. The reduction is small, just enough so they don't try (and fail) to fire at stuff in front of the ship.

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)

That is a pretty big buff. The LN was already one of the better small ballistics due to its burst and accuracy. It had the same DPS/OP as the HN (though -100 range) and the HN was one of the better medium ballistics. Do the OP changes to light AC really make up for it?

It's more about balancing the LN with the railgun.

Quote
IR Pulse Laser: reduced flux cost per shot to 40 (was: 50)

Those are some pretty big changes to small ballistic weapons. -1 OP for a light AC can be translated pretty cleanly to another capacitor or distributor. Does 25% less flux on IR pulse compensate?

Hmm - those are not related; both changes compensate for the weapons being sub-par, but the changes aren't related to each other. The IR pulse laser change may be more impactful than 1 OP, though, since it's, what - 30 flux/second less after the change?


Added unique capital-class ship that can be acquired by the player. Good luck.
Good luck? Good luck?

I mean, you will need it


Kinda sad about it. I agree, it felt silly to get such big colonies so quickly, but with this limit you will get to the max level even faster. Also, having all colonies limited to the same size feels a bit, i don't know, immersion breaking? You'd expect some planets to be population centers with high cap, while others to be limited to lower cap due to conditions and infrastructure (or lack thereof).

In example - planet doesn't automatically upgrade to the next level, and you have to "upgrade" infrastructure, rising the cap. Maybe make first X upgrades cost progressive amount of credits, and after a certain point require special items (similar to nanoforge), AI cores and story points. That would make colonies more diverse and defined by player choice, instead of every single colony having same population and industry limit.

Anyway, thanks for great work!

The way it works out IIRC is a colony has a natural size limit based on its hazard rating; I forget the details right now but it's something like more of a growth penalty from hazard at higher sizes. And then you can overcome it by paying a monthly premium (i.e. toggling on "Hazard Pay"), which is roughly analogous to what you're saying. And while you technically could go to 6 in ever case, you might not necessarily want to, if, say, your mining colony is already providing enough thanks to improvements, special items, and so on - the extra +1 from size might not be worth the investment.

Also, IIRC getting to level 6 will be slower than getting to level 6 is now, especially with growth incentives being replaced by hazard pay.


And I suspect that without a reduction in OP the nerf to Deck Crews might be a bit harsh, and just lead to dropping it altogether (which is fine with me).

You may well be right; this is definitely a case where it's better to err on the side of over-nerfing, though. I suspect/hope it may be situationally useful, still, but we'll see.

Piloting REDACTED ships sounds like fun, too.

(Just to be clear, you can't pilot them yourself!)


Sure. Size is logarithmic and at some point the ability of immigration to produce new colonists is exhausted in favor of natural growth. Which is much slower. Size 6 is 1 million to 10 million and size 7 is 10 million to 100million.

Maybe you could make growth slow down to like 2% per year(or lower) but this effectively caps growth at size 7 since it would take 35 years to grow from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8.

Hmm - yeah, but then you know someone will feel forced to do it, and I don't want to have that on my conscience :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Eji1700 on October 16, 2020, 04:21:27 PM
Thank you all!


"Pirate bases should no longer spawn in systems with neutron stars/pulsars"


Have to say i'm kinda sad to see this.  I was hoping for a more creative solution, such as making it kinda rare/special and with some wonky effects.  Something like having a few results where either they're totally unprepared so their fleets are just a mess, or they have some special feature/items that you normally wouldn't find at a pirate base so it's worth visiting, or even them being some sort of super high tech pirates so the base is actually a high tech with high tech ships sort of thing.

This mostly has to do with fleet AI just not being able to handle pulsars. If I ever have the time (ha) to dedicated to making it handle them, that might be reconsidered, but the likelihood of this seems low. It's just a complicated problem to solve. (And now that I'm talking about it, I kind of want to try. Must. Resist.)


Well to be fair that's why i was shooting for the age old developer solution of "Feature! Not a bug".

In lore reason either being they're just falling apart because they don't know how to handle living next to a pulsar, or they're all equipped with solar shielding in and the like and thus immune/special.

Either way doesn't require an AI rework, just a gameplay tweak (super weak, or high tech and unusually strong.  Both ways you could tell from the fleet that you should be dealing with pulsar systems).  Then make it rare because it's odd enough you don't want it happening all the time.

Anyways just spit balling here. Ripping it out/waiting until you feel like tackling the AI side are both legit too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 04:24:29 PM
Ah, ok, I see what you're saying now! Seems like maybe too minor a thing to make a detour for (or maybe I'm not in the right headspace for it; trying to be more focused on what *has* to get done, etc), but I get where you're coming from now. This was kind of supposed to be a thing for the Sindrian Diktat, btw, what with access to Solar Shielding and Sindria being almost in the corona, but it's more of a backstory-level thing at the moment than something that's strongly represented in-game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage! on October 16, 2020, 04:33:27 PM
Really interesting patch notes!!

One question: from what I can tell the Buffalo got some significant stat increases while the Tarsus, which in the current version is effectively equivalent, got an increased fuel/LY nerf.
It looks like
Buffalo: 400 capacity, 2 fuel/LY
Tarsus: 300 capacity, 3 fuel/LY

Is this what the stats should look like at this point?

Edit: also, does the Atlas Mk.II still have the 10 fuel/LY, or was the Atlas reduction to 6 also meant to apply to it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
One question: from what I can tell the Buffalo got some significant stat increases while the Tarsus, which in the current version is effectively equivalent, got an increased fuel/LY nerf.
It looks like
Buffalo: 400 capacity, 2 fuel/LY
Tarsus: 300 capacity, 3 fuel/LY

Is this what the stats should look like at this point?

Edit: also, does the Atlas Mk.II still have the 10 fuel/LY, or was the Atlas reduction to 6 also meant to apply to it?

Correct on both counts! The Mk.II has 10 fuel/LY.

Re: Buffalo and Tarsus, it's meant to reflect that the Tarsus is a lot safer should it ever need to run away, where the Buffalo basically stands no chance in that kind of situation. Their supplies/month cost is the same at 3, though.

(Edit: ahh, I see now, two conflicting entries in the notes for the Buffalo; cleaned that up.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 16, 2020, 04:39:42 PM
Will there be another Damper Field-equipped ship?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 04:42:41 PM
There's already a couple, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 16, 2020, 04:43:03 PM
Quote
Brawler:

    Changed ship system to Maneuvering Jets (was: Damper Field)
    Increased shield arc to 270 (was: 150)
    Increased supply cost to 6 (was: 4)
    Increased flux dissipation and capacity (200 -> 250, 2500 -> 3000)

That is a pretty big supply cost increase. How does this work for the Brawler Variants?

I'm not sure what you mean. Ahh - do you mean the Pather variants? They're just, well, more expensive. I don't think this really changes much, and they're frankly quite scary at times, so it might not be unwarranted.

The pather variants but also the TT variant. Which loses a good deal of value here. it has plasma jets(and IEM built in) which are better than maneuvering. But its still running the same (well new)flux stats with medium energy weapons instead of being able to use ballistic. Its not gaining +50% flux/capacity after fitting and its not like the Brawler is particularly mobile as it is, at 100 base speed (150 for the wolf, 120 for the lasher)

The Pather variant probably could use to be more expensive but i am more OK with a harder to obtain variant being overly strong than i am with a base ship being lackluster.

Quote
Sure. Size is logarithmic and at some point the ability of immigration to produce new colonists is exhausted in favor of natural growth. Which is much slower. Size 6 is 1 million to 10 million and size 7 is 10 million to 100million.

Maybe you could make growth slow down to like 2% per year(or lower) but this effectively caps growth at size 7 since it would take 35 years to grow from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8.

Hmm - yeah, but then you know someone will feel forced to do it, and I don't want to have that on my conscience :)

Yea i was just giving a reason. Also i only doubled pop in my examination if growth is 2% year it would take 116 years to go from size 6 to 7. 231 years at 1% growth and 461 years at .05% growth. Might as well just cut it off... Though super projects (or bonuses from having particularly low hazard rating and some extra stability penalties for being big might be fun so that not all colonies cap at the same size(but also that its unfeasible to have more than one out there? Maybe let you designate one place as your faction capital that ignores size growth limits)
Will there be another Damper Field-equipped ship?

The centurion has damper field (and 500 armor) its probably the superior damper field ship anyway due to its less forward focused design and higher speed edit: and 5 extra OP edit: and higher armor
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 16, 2020, 04:48:14 PM
Nice, lots of stuff in there that wasn't hinted at before either, as far as i'm aware. Consider me hyped.

Tons of QoL improvements. I'm surprised by the "Move slowly" function but think it's a good addition. Also a (very welcome) surprise is the "historian." That's just a neat touch.

For what it's worth, move slowly is already a thing in the current version. Makes you travel at the same speed as go dark right now, i think. Hold S to "activate" it.
IIRC the main use i get out of it is when hiding from a pulsar behind a small planet, where doing nothing makes you enter orbit and moving at normal speed increases the chance of misclicking/moving out of your cover.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 16, 2020, 04:53:29 PM
Sure. Size is logarithmic and at some point the ability of immigration to produce new colonists is exhausted in favor of natural growth. Which is much slower. Size 6 is 1 million to 10 million and size 7 is 10 million to 100million.

Maybe you could make growth slow down to like 2% per year(or lower) but this effectively caps growth at size 7 since it would take 35 years to grow from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8.
I'd be fine with very slow growth, even if it's to the point where it's effectively soft capped. But what I'm imagining (and which obviously might not be accurate to how it actually is ingame) is that my colony will grow to size 6 and then just...stop. Population growth stuck at 0% forever no matter how many decades pass or what happens in those decades. It'd just look off.

Actually, as far as ideas to make very large colonies possible to get but limited/hard/expensive/etc., what about Cryosleepers? New colonies without a Cryosleeper can only get so much growth from natural population growth and immigration before even Chico on it's worst day is able to make much of a dent, but Cryosleepers (optional: and an AI Core/Story Point to speed up the process) can push a colony to size 7/8/9/10/whatever makes the most sense?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 04:55:35 PM
The pather variants but also the TT variant. Which loses a good deal of value here. it has plasma jets(and IEM built in) which are better than maneuvering. But its still running the same (well new)flux stats with medium energy weapons instead of being able to use ballistic. Its not gaining +50% flux/capacity after fitting and its not like the Brawler is particularly mobile as it is, at 100 base speed (150 for the wolf, 120 for the lasher)

Ah, Brawler (TT); wasn't really thinking about it. Hmm. It might be ok, actually, with some of the buffs to energy weapons, and with the possibility of getting the high-flux bonus to energy weapons. And it did technically get the same buffs as the base Brawler, though I get what you're saying about the relative utility of those being somewhat less there.

For what it's worth, move slowly is already a thing in the current version. Makes you travel at the same speed as go dark right now, i think. Hold S to "activate" it.
IIRC the main use i get out of it is when hiding from a pulsar behind a small planet, where doing nothing makes you enter orbit and moving at normal speed increases the chance of misclicking/moving out of your cover.

"Move slowly" is pretty bugged in the current version, iirc. Also, it's slower than "go dark"; having "go dark" make the fleet "move slowly" is new, and also "move slowly" is faster.

(Brain's a bit of a mush right now, so maybe I'm not making too much sense.)

One of the things I'm happy with here is at Tech 1, you pick Sensors vs Navigation, and the Sensors skill gives you a burn bonus to "moving slowly". So you can pick to either be a bit faster overall, or to be significantly faster while sneaking, which I think is a more interesting choice than "move faster" and "don't move faster", since we know how that one would go.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arakasi on October 16, 2020, 04:56:18 PM
Amazing stuff! I am really looking forward to this update.

Now that these are added (I believe in-part due to a conversation we had):
Ships/systems:
  • Added Phantom-class phase troop transport
  • Added Revenant-class phase hybrid freighter/tanker
Are you considering increasing the sensor range of [REDACTED] fleets to make sneak salvaging in those systems more difficult? (I have been personally modding my game so that their burn level is increased by 2 to make them more punishing, since they don't have a burn drive ability).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 16, 2020, 04:57:01 PM
Heh, i don't think the Cryosleepers are supposed to be big enough to make that much of an impact, lore-wise. (i.e. outside of gameplay mechanics there would be a moment where they run out due to everyone being awakened.)
Remember that size 9 means billions of people and size 10 between 10 and 100 billion.


"Move slowly" is pretty bugged in the current version, iirc. Also, it's slower than "go dark"; having "go dark" make the fleet "move slowly" is new, and also "move slowly" is faster.

(Brain's a bit of a mush right now, so maybe I'm not making too much sense.)

One of the things I'm happy with here is at Tech 1, you pick Sensors vs Navigation, and the Sensors skill gives you a burn bonus to "moving slowly". So you can pick to either be a bit faster overall, or to be significantly faster while sneaking, which I think is a more interesting choice than "move faster" and "don't move faster", since we know how that one would go.

Ah yeah it was clear from the patch notes that the functionality in the next version will change.
As to how it works right now (bugged or not), and how that relates to "go dark", i wouldn't be able to tell, considering how limited my use of it is.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ishman on October 16, 2020, 05:01:00 PM
Thanks for the patch notes Alex, and g'luck on assembling everything together for this release!

I imagine you must be itching to get the post-patch bug fixes out of the way too, lol.

Also I just wanted to say I'm excited you've thrown me a bone with the megastructure stuff in this release, and I can't wait to engage with what's there in the release, and to see more in future versions. Also, I don't know if David or you are doing the story elements/descriptions for them, but don't forget to check out Charles Sheffield's work - his novels (Summertide) partly inspired my lifelong fascination with them (and the ideas in Jack McDevitt's stuff, even if I found all his novels dry as a desert).

The first thing I'm doing is still changing the Apogee's shield efficiency back to .6 though, the suspiciously combat effective long-range exploration vessel checks every one of my favorite science fiction tropes, and I love her so much.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: passwalker on October 16, 2020, 05:01:13 PM
still no way to restrict maximum AI fleet power?
sad
fighting a fleet with 10+carriers is not fun, it just turns game into a turn based strategy
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AsterPiano on October 16, 2020, 05:03:38 PM
The addition of phase logistics ships makes me very happy, and the changes to Phase Field and High Resolution Sensors, the Go Dark ability and the Sensors skill, along with the addition of "Salvaging and Scavenging now briefly increase the fleet's sensor profile by 1000 units" sound like a really well thought out combination.
In the current version I'm a fan of sensor strength/profile focused exploration fleets and I imagine this is going to make for some dynamic gameplay, forcing you to choose between what to salvage and what to leave behind.. I guess generally this is going to create a sort of hard cap for how close to enemy fleets you can sneakily salvage stuff, but improve your ability to be undetected in other situations. I never thought about it, but it definitely makes more sense this way, since it's weird that an enemy fleet could detect something like a derelict ship, but not think something's off when that derelict ship suddenly turns into a debris field.

Quote
Scarab:
Increased flux dissipation to 250 (was: 150)
Increased flux capacity to 2500 (was: 2000)
Removed the two less than optimally placed weapon slots
It makes me happy to see the most (?) underwhelming ship in the game to get a nice buff. Also another feasible ship for slamming beams onto..

Quote
Paladin PD System
Burst PD Laser
Heavy Burst Laser
Mining Laser
The changes make me very happy. I still have a gut feeling that with these changes the Heavy Burst Laser will end up being underwhelming for its cost compared to the small Burst PD and the Paladin PD, but it's been some time since I last looked at the stats. And also a buff to some beam based weaponry makes me happy, goes well with that improvement of the Scarab ;)

Quote
Ion Pulser:
Increased range to 500 (was: 450)
Increased damage to 100 (was: 75)
Increased emp damage to 600 (was: 400)
I'm surprised about these changes, I've always thought the Ion Pulser was one of the most effective energy weapons (and also a lot of fun to use).
This change along with the decrease in OP for the Light Needler makes me wonder if you want to promote the use of more burst weapons, or if the reasons for the changes are completely something else.

Quote
Heavy Armor: reduced maneuver penalty to 10%, moderately increased armor bonus
As I was saying with burst weapons.. seems suspicious :P (but nice to see :D)
This is a juicy sounding buff, I'm excited to build some loadouts around these changes. Also becomes a more attractive choice for insurance to save AI pilots from their own mistakes.

Quote
All types of contacts allow you to order ships/weapons/fighters, without having a colony
Trade: use your own blueprints only
Military: use own, or faction's blueprints
Underworld: order good stuff regardless of blueprint availability; more expensive
Underworld contact functions as "arms dealer"; not selling production capacity
Is a way to get access to rare ships/items that might otherwise be too hard to find

Especially being someone that is unnecessarily picky about picking a colony spot and end up spending way too long deciding on a good system, I think that after the Skill System revamp and everything to do with Story Points, this is the most interesting addition for me. Being able to use your blueprints early on like that really opens up some nice options, like if you found a Buffalo (M) blueprint (did that even have a blueprint or am I making stuff up?) but you're having trouble finding good freighters for sale. Ahh that's going to be helpful,
And then the Military and Underworld options sound even more exciting on top of that... I'm curious, is this also going to mean that we don't need to be commissioned + high relations with a faction if we want to buy their good weapons or even ships?

Quote
Increased XP gain from fighting more challenging battles

Does this mean challenging in the sense of really high end late game battles, or challenging in the sense of battles against fleets much bigger/higher tier relative to your fleet? If it's the latter then that sounds really exciting and a lot of fun :D, a really nice boost for the early game and a satisfying reward for spending the time to load out a fleet efficiently, and not as many downsides to keeping a small fleet.
Also if it's the latter, does it take into account both fleets' officer levels? I wonder, would it also take into account the player's combat skills level?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 16, 2020, 05:15:10 PM
Can you talk a bit more about the reasoning behind increasing the growth penalties for hazard rating? It already felt to me like it could be hard to justify trying to make a colony on high hazard worlds. I noticed that the synchrotron requires no atmosphere, are there other new industry boosters with similar requirements that incentivize high hazard colonies, or are they just becoming even less desirable in the next release?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on October 16, 2020, 05:23:04 PM
First, thanks very much for the patch notes. They look exciting.

Can you talk a bit more about the reasoning behind increasing the growth penalties for hazard rating? It already felt to me like it could be hard to justify trying to make a colony on high hazard worlds. I noticed that the synchrotron requires no atmosphere, are there other new industry boosters with similar requirements that incentivize high hazard colonies, or are they just becoming even less desirable in the next release?

Sounds like the old pay to increase growth which is now hazard pay lets you close the gap?  Since its whatever the hazard penalty is + a few?  So really high hazard worlds are no worse than zero hazard worlds.  Habitable and Mild change that on top of that, but really high hazard growth isn't that bad off?  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something from the notes.

I feel like higher hazard worlds tended to have more mineral/fuel resources.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 05:38:04 PM
Population growth stuck at 0% forever no matter how many decades pass or what happens in those decades. It'd just look off.

(Pretty sure it'll stop showing the progress bar at max size; if not, it should.)

Actually, as far as ideas to make very large colonies possible to get but limited/hard/expensive/etc., what about Cryosleepers? New colonies without a Cryosleeper can only get so much growth from natural population growth and immigration before even Chico on it's worst day is able to make much of a dent, but Cryosleepers (optional: and an AI Core/Story Point to speed up the process) can push a colony to size 7/8/9/10/whatever makes the most sense?

It just comes down to me thinking that size 6 is about what's appropriate on the high end, feel-wise. You can have as many industries in a size 6 as you can now on a bigger colony, and items gives you industrial bonuses you wouldn't have had access to before. I'm not really sure why you'd want bigger colonies, beyond just "it's a bigger number". I mean, if you just want to have the largest colony in the Sector, that's already achievable with a size 6 colony :)


As to how it works right now (bugged or not), and how that relates to "go dark", i wouldn't be able to tell, considering how limited my use of it is.

Makes sense, it's got very limited usefulness right now.


Thanks for the patch notes Alex, and g'luck on assembling everything together for this release!

Thank you!

Also I just wanted to say I'm excited you've thrown me a bone with the megastructure stuff in this release, and I can't wait to engage with what's there in the release, and to see more in future versions. Also, I don't know if David or you are doing the story elements/descriptions for them, but don't forget to check out Charles Sheffield's work - his novels (Summertide) partly inspired my lifelong fascination with them (and the ideas in Jack McDevitt's stuff, even if I found all his novels dry as a desert).

Oh, funny - I'd recently read a bunch of McDevitt (the entire Hutchins series, and then the... other one about the antiques guy? Benedict, that was it) and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Lots of cool ideas! Will check out Sheffield, thanks for the rec!

The first thing I'm doing is still changing the Apogee's shield efficiency back to .6 though, the suspiciously combat effective long-range exploration vessel checks every one of my favorite science fiction tropes, and I love her so much.

*thumbs up* Honestly, I'm happy that you can easily tweak it to your liking.

still no way to restrict maximum AI fleet power?
sad
fighting a fleet with 10+carriers is not fun, it just turns game into a turn based strategy

Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.


I never thought about it, but it definitely makes more sense this way, since it's weird that an enemy fleet could detect something like a derelict ship, but not think something's off when that derelict ship suddenly turns into a debris field.

Yeah, the idea is that it should create for some suddenly-exciting situations :)

Quote
Scarab:
Increased flux dissipation to 250 (was: 150)
Increased flux capacity to 2500 (was: 2000)
Removed the two less than optimally placed weapon slots
It makes me happy to see the most (?) underwhelming ship in the game to get a nice buff. Also another feasible ship for slamming beams onto..

(I had one in a recent test run - funnily enough, found a blueprint and then had a contact make one - and it's such a beast of a ship. Total glass cannon, but in one fight it literally blew up 4 ships in under 10 seconds, and two of them were destroyers. I need to make a gif of it at some point if I can recreate even a similar situation, it was just so ruthlessly efficient.)


Quote
Ion Pulser:
Increased range to 500 (was: 450)
Increased damage to 100 (was: 75)
Increased emp damage to 600 (was: 400)
I'm surprised about these changes, I've always thought the Ion Pulser was one of the most effective energy weapons (and also a lot of fun to use).
This change along with the decrease in OP for the Light Needler makes me wonder if you want to promote the use of more burst weapons, or if the reasons for the changes are completely something else.

Honestly, I might end up pulling some of this back - it seemed underpowered, but using it with the changes, it's *very* good, to the point of possibly being too good.


I'm curious, is this also going to mean that we don't need to be commissioned + high relations with a faction if we want to buy their good weapons or even ships?

Right - though it'll be less reliable access, as this custom production through contacts won't always be available.

Quote
Increased XP gain from fighting more challenging battles

Does this mean challenging in the sense of really high end late game battles, or challenging in the sense of battles against fleets much bigger/higher tier relative to your fleet? If it's the latter then that sounds really exciting and a lot of fun :D, a really nice boost for the early game and a satisfying reward for spending the time to load out a fleet efficiently, and not as many downsides to keeping a small fleet.
Also if it's the latter, does it take into account both fleets' officer levels? I wonder, would it also take into account the player's combat skills level?

It's based on relative fleet size and officers etc. So you could absolutely take advantage of it in the early game. Notably, it's not based on what you deploy, but on your actual fleet, so it's more encouraging a leaner fleet composition than it is smaller deployments.


Can you talk a bit more about the reasoning behind increasing the growth penalties for hazard rating? It already felt to me like it could be hard to justify trying to make a colony on high hazard worlds. I noticed that the synchrotron requires no atmosphere, are there other new industry boosters with similar requirements that incentivize high hazard colonies, or are they just becoming even less desirable in the next release?

IIRC it's so that higher-hazard colonies have a lower natural size that they get to without additional incentives. It also gives you more control over growth so you e.g. don't attract attention too early or don't have a colony grow and then start paying more upkeep than you wanted to (which is more of a concern on high-hazard worlds).

Most items have some kind of requirement that's often less-than-ideal. High-hazard worlds are obviously less desirable due to the hazrd rating, but they're also more desirable due to often having better quality resource deposits etc.

Mainly, though, it's because I think "small mining colony" should be a thing.

Sounds like the old pay to increase growth which is now hazard pay lets you close the gap?  Since its whatever the hazard penalty is + a few?  So really high hazard worlds are no worse than zero hazard worlds.  Habitable and Mild change that on top of that, but really high hazard growth isn't that bad off?  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something from the notes.

Right, but closing the gap is also more expensive on high-hazard worlds.

I feel like higher hazard worlds tended to have more mineral/fuel resources.

They absolutely do, yeah.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 16, 2020, 05:43:46 PM
Wooo patch notes! Tons of great stuff in here, and lots of teasers for mission content I see. I am super pumped for the Xyphos having a range of 0! (Yes this is a tiny change, but I don't care, its wonderful.)

Unless I've missed something, higher hazard worlds will still make for higher maintenance costs, which is then reduced by having goods supplied in faction. It will depend heavily on the exact values everything ends up at, but there is the potential for "early" colonies wanting to be habitable in order to avoid maintenance and high hazard colonies being profitable "late", once demanded goods are supplied. Just a bit of theorycraft.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Piemanlives on October 16, 2020, 05:44:45 PM
Alex I love you.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Drazhya on October 16, 2020, 05:46:51 PM
"Number of recoverable ships shown not limited by maximum number of ships in player fleet"
As a long-time user of mods that add special ship bounties, this'll save a ton of trouble.

"Can use a story point to recover an otherwise unrecoverable derelict ship (only applies to derelict ships found in the campaign, not during a combat encounter)"
And having encountered a few modded ships that I would have loved to recover, that will also have a big impact.

"Emergency Burn no longer makes the fleet ignore terrain penalties"
Are we going to get a hyperstorm map layer on the sector map? I don't remember how it was without Adjusted Sector, but at least with it, there doesn't seem to be any way to figure out where the hyperstorms are without almost flying into them. If I could, I'd try looking at a map and navigating around, but as it is, it's too much bother and I'd rather burn through.

"Moderately reduced sell price of ship blueprints and special items such as Nanoforges"
Blueprints, I can understand. Corrupted nanoforges, I can understand. Pristine Nanoforges though... I'm pretty sure most factions in the sector would gladly trade 5 or more capital ships for one pristine nanoforge. On the same note, it's kind of odd that you can only trade them to factions through the open market for static profit and no rep gain, while the relatively unremarkable AI cores can be traded to contacts for variable profit and some rep.

"Maximum post-Collapse colony growth limited to a maximum of colony size 6"
Kind of sad about this, but mostly because I like making things bigger and better. Find a big, dark planet orbiting a black hole, build a blazing sun-moon, terraform in some green, add a couple astropoli...

"Colossus (all versions): increased fuel/ly to 4 (was: 3)
Atlas: reduced fuel use to 6/ly (was: 10)"
It amuses me that so very many mod logistics ships were so carefully, precisely tuned so as to be not overpowered, so closely matched to their vanilla equivalents, and often so hard to find to boot that I usually just went with stacks of the old, vanilla Colossus... and then you went and nerfed the Colossus and made the Atlas king of fuel economy. Welp. Glad it happened.

"Phase Field: now also reduces the fleet's sensor profile, in addition to its current effect
Diminishing returns from multiple ships, based on value from largest phase ship
High Resolution Sensors:
No longer affect individual ship's sensor strength
Now increase fleet's sensor range, with diminishing returns based on value from largest ships"
On the one hand, you no longer need to specialize all your ships to get good value out of these mods. On the other hand, it means less to have a specialized fleet. Dunno how to feel about this. Probably good?

"Added: Converted Fighter Bays
Removes built-in fighter bays, adds cargo capacity and reduces required crew per bay removed
Ship must only have built-in fighter bays for hullmod to be installed"
Great to see this one going vanilla. Though I say 'this one', it's clearly not quite the same. No reduction in maintenance. Curious what the final numbers will be.

"Added: Shield Shunt; removes shields and increases EMP resistance by 50%
EMP resistance is multiplicative with other sources"
This one, on the other hand... just EMP resistance is pretty light. I can see the use, I guess, but I'd like to see a little bit more. Eh well, see how it shakes out I guess.

(AI tweaks)
Hopefully this will mean less herp-a-derp in my future.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 16, 2020, 05:55:17 PM
Very, very, very promising. Surely a great release coming our way!

As always the attention to details is awesome.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 05:57:44 PM
I am super pumped for the Xyphos having a range of 0! (Yes this is a tiny change, but I don't care, its wonderful.)

Ha! Fair enough :)

Unless I've missed something, higher hazard worlds will still make for higher maintenance costs, which is then reduced by having goods supplied in faction. It will depend heavily on the exact values everything ends up at, but there is the potential for "early" colonies wanting to be habitable in order to avoid maintenance and high hazard colonies being profitable "late", once demanded goods are supplied. Just a bit of theorycraft.

It will *heavily* depend on which items you find. The idea here, really, is that you find some items, and your colony strategy for that playthrough is based off that - so that there's less of an optimal plan going in, and more variety/adapting to what becomes available.


Are we going to get a hyperstorm map layer on the sector map? I don't remember how it was without Adjusted Sector, but at least with it, there doesn't seem to be any way to figure out where the hyperstorms are without almost flying into them. If I could, I'd try looking at a map and navigating around, but as it is, it's too much bother and I'd rather burn through.

If you press "1" on the map, it turns off the Starscape view and you can roughly see where the deep hyper areas are.


Kind of sad about this, but mostly because I like making things bigger and better. Find a big, dark planet orbiting a black hole, build a blazing sun-moon, terraform in some green, add a couple astropoli...

I mean, if you're playing with a terraforming mod, it's not too much of a stretch to assume it might up those numbers, too.


On the one hand, you no longer need to specialize all your ships to get good value out of these mods. On the other hand, it means less to have a specialized fleet. Dunno how to feel about this. Probably good?

It's more about making sure that, say, having an Omen in your fleet matters even if you have a bunch of large ships (which with the old mechanics would overshadow it entirely).


Alex I love you.

(Should I go with the Han Solo reply here? Sorely tempted.)

As always the attention to details is awesome.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: huhn on October 16, 2020, 06:04:09 PM
Quote
Recall Device: now has a 30 second cooldown

NO. i guess i have to play doom again.
i was using this every 5-30 sec. i was using it sometime just to make sure they are in formations.
and yeah it was a bit strong just flying through an armada and pressing the DELETE key from time to time.

RIP Astral for been the strongest ship you will be remembered still good i guess.

edit: iw as thinking that phase transports where missing int he game (expesive upkeep but hard to detect/hard to catch) so i guess that only leaves one ship type missing and that's a mid line capital carrier.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arakasi on October 16, 2020, 06:06:14 PM
Are you considering increasing the sensor range of [REDACTED] fleets to make sneak salvaging in those systems more difficult now that you've introduced the strategic phase ships? (I have been personally modding my game so that their burn level is increased by 2 to make them more punishing, since they don't have a burn drive ability).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 06:08:22 PM
Salvaging/scavenging temporarily boosts you sensor profile by 1000; it's in the patch notes - so, no, but also yes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arakasi on October 16, 2020, 06:13:38 PM
Salvaging/scavenging temporarily boosts you sensor profile by 1000; it's in the patch notes - so, no, but also yes.

I missed that! Not sure if that will give the phase ships that much of an advantage in that situation but it certainly makes the whole process harder and is appreciated, thank you!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 16, 2020, 06:20:49 PM
How many admin skills are there in the next update? Four?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 06:22:28 PM
Three, same as now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 16, 2020, 06:23:04 PM
*happy dance*

Gonna comment on some specific things, mostly the things I feel have problems.
So first I gotta say: this is almost entirely good news! I had to scroll down three pages to find a thing I specifically objected to.

Quote
Greatly decreased pirate base bounty payouts
eeeee
I mean, not having easy money is good! But taking on any kind of base (especially now that one-module bases are no longer a thing) requires a considerable investment and risk in the early to mid game. It sounds like the problem was more that person bounties and LP base bounties weren't paying enough.

Quote
Maximum post-Collapse colony growth limited to a maximum of colony size 6
Random thought: Cryorevival Facility is an obvious candidate for raising its planet's limit by 1.
(EDIT: Ah, I see this was already mentioned)

Quote
Nanoforges: add Pollution when installed; becomes permanent after three months
Synchrotron: requires "No atmosphere" condition
Ow. Is this a way to incentivize colonies on non-habitable worlds?

Does pollution from nanoforges requite the Habitable condition (like the pollution from bombardment)?

It feels like the heavy industry itself should be the source of pollution, not the nanoforge. Was that deemed too punishing?

Quote
Spaceport: removed "No spaceport" accessibility penalty when under construction or disrupted
*happy dance*
Although I fear that straight-up reducing the penalty to zero swings the pendulum to spaceport disruption being too weak. With the +5 in-faction trade capacity bonus, disrupting a core world spaceport will likely have no effect whatsoever on commodity scarcity on the planet or elsewhere in the faction.

Quote
High Tech orbital station:
    Fixed issue with wrong type of weapon slot
    Added Fighter Chassis Storage to hangar module
Can you also do something about the shield modules dying early on in autoresolve? This has awkward effects when a player joins an ongoing battle with/against the station.

Quote
Tarsus: increased fuel use to 3/ly (was: 2)
Buffalo: increased cargo capacity to 400 (was: 300)
I feel like only one of those changes should have been implemented.

So the idea is that Tarsus is the safe option and Buffalo is the cost-efficient option. But past a certain point, having to fight a disengage scenario at all is a sign you did something wrong (which is why people like me keep suggesting ways to drag civ ships into fights). So the Tarsus's strength will very rarely be relevant.

...unless this is intended to work with the new options to turn civilian ships into combatants?

Quote
Drover:
    Deployment/maintenance cost increased to 15 (was: 12)
Drover was overdue for an adjustment, but with Reserve Deployment already having the run-in with the nerf bat, isn't the DP increase on top of that really punitive?

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)
Railgun: increased OP cost to 8 (was: 7)
This is probably actually bad!
The attachment is gone now (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=18065.msg283004#msg283004), but bobucles made a graph which shows Light Needler significantly out-DPSes Railgun early in a fight (for like 20 seconds or such) due to having the large damage spike at t=0. Mind, that's a double-edged sword since it also adds flux to the firing ship, and you pay 2 more OP for the privilege, but it persuaded me that LNs are actually worth using over railguns sometimes. And Needler is more efficient and has faster projectiles.

More frivolous stuff
Quote
Added Fury-class light cruiser, high tech
Added Champion-class heavy cruiser, midline
Added Phantom-class phase troop transport
Added Revenant-class phase hybrid freighter/tanker
Ha ha ha this is three mod ships and one mod weapon that will now need renaming

Quote
Afflictor: changed two of the front-facing hardpoints from Universal to Hybrid
Noooooo my Reaper backstab bus
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nighteyes on October 16, 2020, 06:24:20 PM
Quote
Added UI scaling setting

4k time?!?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: florg on October 16, 2020, 06:38:01 PM
Kind of bummed about the hammerhead rear turrets not being able to face forward but it's pretty understandable considering how great safety overrides chaingun hammerheads are at ripping enemies to shreds
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 07:00:10 PM
Gonna comment on some specific things, mostly the things I feel have problems.
So first I gotta say: this is almost entirely good news! I had to scroll down three pages to find a thing I specifically objected to.

Thank you, and gotcha! Stuff that's good, there's not much to talk about, right.


I mean, not having easy money is good! But taking on any kind of base (especially now that one-module bases are no longer a thing) requires a considerable investment and risk in the early to mid game. It sounds like the problem was more that person bounties and LP base bounties weren't paying enough.

Well, this was a direct reaction to suddenly finding myself swimming in credits during a test run, for what felt like no good reason. It's entirely possible that it's an "overnerf" but consider that 1) it's probably fine not to have a bounty on pirate bases *at all*, and 2) beating one gets you a fair amount of salvage, too.


Quote
Nanoforges: add Pollution when installed; becomes permanent after three months
Synchrotron: requires "No atmosphere" condition
Ow. Is this a way to incentivize colonies on non-habitable worlds?

Does pollution from nanoforges requite the Habitable condition (like the pollution from bombardment)?

It feels like the heavy industry itself should be the source of pollution, not the nanoforge. Was that deemed too punishing?

Part of an effort to incentivize colony world variety, yeah; most items have requirements or interactions with planetary conditions.

Pollution doesn't require habitable - consider corrosives, radiation, etc. Good point re: bombardments, though; let me remove the "habitable" requirement there. Hmm. On the other hand, what this does is instead of disincentivizing industry on habitable worlds, it more incentivizes (somewhat) industry on a world by itself. So, actually, let me make a note to check tomorrow; it seems offhand that requiring habitable for pollution is probably the right way to go.

Re: whether it's heavy industry or a nanoforge, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much which one causes it, since a nanoforge of some sort is almost required. But I suppose this leaves the option of having a safer, low-tier heavy industry, not that it's going to generally be a good option.


Quote
Spaceport: removed "No spaceport" accessibility penalty when under construction or disrupted
*happy dance*
Although I fear that straight-up reducing the penalty to zero swings the pendulum to spaceport disruption being too weak. With the +5 in-faction trade capacity bonus, disrupting a core world spaceport will likely have no effect whatsoever on commodity scarcity on the planet or elsewhere in the faction.

One thing to consider: the in-faction bonus doesn't matter as much for exports. So while a spaceport disruption won't be crippling (i.e. raiding it on Jangala gives it a deficit of one in a couple of commodities), and doesn't interrupt too much of its ability to supply in-faction colonies with organics (though it interrupts some of it - more of an effect for things that are a colony's specialty, really), it *also* gives it something like 6 or 7 units of surplus organics since it can't export them out of faction. So, still opens a major opportunity, just not one that cripples a colony/faction.

It might seem a lot weaker - and it is - but I think that's also to do with just how incredibly crippling it was before.

Can you also do something about the shield modules dying early on in autoresolve? This has awkward effects when a player joins an ongoing battle with/against the station.

Let me make a note to take a look; that could be a bit hairy.


I feel like only one of those changes should have been implemented.

So the idea is that Tarsus is the safe option and Buffalo is the cost-efficient option. But past a certain point, having to fight a disengage scenario at all is a sign you did something wrong (which is why people like me keep suggesting ways to drag civ ships into fights). So the Tarsus's strength will very rarely be relevant.

...unless this is intended to work with the new options to turn civilian ships into combatants?

Hmm. Yeah, looking at it again maybe the Tarsus could use, say, 350 capacity or something. It *does* make a reasonable chassis for a civ-combatant (really, a damage sponge brick) but I'm not sure that's enough to really swing things in its favor.

And, yeah, I get why the suggestion about dragging civ ships into fights comes up. Just, I don't think that it works out in a way that's generally better than "civ ships are usually stat slots" - which, while unexciting, is also not actively a negative.

(Also: you can force a running enemy to fight now, with a story point! So at least enemy civilian ships can be dragged into a battle.)


Drover was overdue for an adjustment, but with Reserve Deployment already having the run-in with the nerf bat, isn't the DP increase on top of that really punitive?

Even with the RD change, it's still quite good, so: I think it's reasonable. The RD change isn't an outright nerf, right, and having a critical mass of Drovers with wing-size-boosting RD early in a fight could even be stronger than before.

Quote
Light Needler: reduced OP cost to 7 (was: 9)
Railgun: increased OP cost to 8 (was: 7)
This is probably actually bad!
The attachment is gone now (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=18065.msg283004#msg283004), but bobucles made a graph which shows Light Needler significantly out-DPSes Railgun early in a fight (for like 20 seconds or such) due to having the large damage spike at t=0. Mind, that's a double-edged sword since it also adds flux to the firing ship, and you pay 2 more OP for the privilege, but it persuaded me that LNs are actually worth using over railguns sometimes. And Needler is more efficient and has faster projectiles.

Hmm. The thing with the LN is, beyond pure DPS, it's pretty much only good vs shields. I think it's ok for it to be a bit cheaper *and* to be worth using over railguns sometimes, since it's more specialized where a railgun is just always good.


Ha ha ha this is three mod ships and one mod weapon that will now need renaming

(Ahh, apologies to all affected parties. Just, hard to avoid.)


Quote
Added UI scaling setting

4k time?!?

Indeed!


Kind of bummed about the hammerhead rear turrets not being able to face forward but it's pretty understandable considering how great safety overrides chaingun hammerheads are at ripping enemies to shreds

(Yeah, it's a bit much, plus it looks kind of silly.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: miniusAreas on October 16, 2020, 07:10:19 PM
Woooo, 0.95a! It couldn't come sooner! But there's some things to address!

The Conquest! From using it alot because midline bestline, I've noticed it tends to just keep itself pointed directly at a target and fire torpedos (in the case of Reapers) until it runs dry, rather than attempting to broadside till flux is driven up, then torpdeo the living smitherines out of things like it really should.

It's cool to see the onslaught get changes! Do the two side mounts now point forwards, or is it still just another glorified place to put a Devastator (but now with less OP cost)

A few other random thoughts now that we're in the story update - Previously when dropping bombs on small raiders, rescuing people from planets, etc - the "Answer the Hail" option you occasionally get from planets with ruins - there was texts saying "Hopefully this was a good idea, hopefully they don't bring sickness, etc" or something of that nature.... With this update, can my people catch the space pox, eat rocks and die, if I accept a buncha refugees?

can I put a hat on that AI core? Like a beret? Please?

AI core officers for the player? It makes sense in a way - if you're putting an alpha core in charge of an entire enterprise, and it keeps quiet about it, surely its loyal enough to you to fly some giant toilet with laser beams!

Decreased Pirate Base Bounties. Oh. Why did you do this? It generally takes 3-4 cruisers to kill a pirate station - unless you have the skills to do it yourself, alone - and usualy by the time you have one to two cruisers, the money is mediocre at best.

I probably have more crap to say, but I'm playing Space Station 13, and my minds sidetracked, so here's a start to it all...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 16, 2020, 07:11:50 PM
Very few head-scratchers now that I've had a chance to digest the whole thing. Overall, excellent stuff and I can't wait to see some of the new (hidden) stuff in action. I'm quite curious about the new enemy type but I'm sure I won't get anything out of you (yet!)

- The Buffalo/Tarsus thing didn't make much sense initially but you already explained why.

- The Railgun/Light Needler change is a little weird to me. I consider them different but equal: one is burst-y with no ability to harm armor while the other is a generally
excellent all-rounder kinetic. Both are very good. I think I'd be fine with both being 8 OP.

Quote
Added the chance to be able to promote a junior officer to a ship command position after battle, uses a story point
-I presume this means that in an RNG post-battle prompt, you'll get the chance to recruit an officer for "free" via story point. Or is this one of those "mentor" things?

- Assault Chaingun being brought back down to Earth. Ion Pulser being being buffed. Warthog being brought back. All good changes.

- IR Pulse being flux efficient is actually a huge change. It makes Small Energy slots Less Bad (I still won't call them "good"). A ton of High Tech ships rely on Small Energy to get things done and none of the options are good for breaking shields.

- Out of curiosity, since I didn't see anything mentioned, but any update on the "Orders" tab?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Warnoise on October 16, 2020, 08:03:12 PM
I was expecting the sabot to be nerfed. It is now anti low tech ships because its burst outranges small ballistic PD's and AI always tries to block it with shield which makes end up being overfluxed all the time.

It would be great if sabot burst range gets significantly reduced considering the amount of damage it does.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: peppermeth on October 16, 2020, 08:29:02 PM
Would it be possible to change the max size of (of one or some or all) player colonies in the setting? 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mayu on October 16, 2020, 08:39:44 PM
How about changing the faction color of the player? Is it still possible?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 08:52:12 PM
The Conquest! From using it alot because midline bestline, I've noticed it tends to just keep itself pointed directly at a target and fire torpedos (in the case of Reapers) until it runs dry, rather than attempting to broadside till flux is driven up, then torpdeo the living smitherines out of things like it really should.

Hmm, not seeing this behavior; it does what seems like a reasonable mix of both.

It's cool to see the onslaught get changes! Do the two side mounts now point forwards, or is it still just another glorified place to put a Devastator (but now with less OP cost)

They're still facing sideways. But there's some good broadside Onslaught builds! If you're into the Conquest, you might want to experiment with that, too.

A few other random thoughts now that we're in the story update - Previously when dropping bombs on small raiders, rescuing people from planets, etc - the "Answer the Hail" option you occasionally get from planets with ruins - there was texts saying "Hopefully this was a good idea, hopefully they don't bring sickness, etc" or something of that nature.... With this update, can my people catch the space pox, eat rocks and die, if I accept a buncha refugees?

Ah - that's from a mod!

Decreased Pirate Base Bounties. Oh. Why did you do this? It generally takes 3-4 cruisers to kill a pirate station - unless you have the skills to do it yourself, alone - and usualy by the time you have one to two cruisers, the money is mediocre at best.

Hmm, not in my experience. It felt like way too many credits way too early.


- The Railgun/Light Needler change is a little weird to me. I consider them different but equal: one is burst-y with no ability to harm armor while the other is a generally
excellent all-rounder kinetic. Both are very good. I think I'd be fine with both being 8 OP.

Since this was mentioned a couple of times: I'll keep an eye on it!

Quote
Added the chance to be able to promote a junior officer to a ship command position after battle, uses a story point
-I presume this means that in an RNG post-battle prompt, you'll get the chance to recruit an officer for "free" via story point. Or is this one of those "mentor" things?

You get an intel item about an officer promotion candidate after closing out the combat dialog. Then you can act on it within a month or so; it is indeed a story point option, granting 100% bonus XP.

- Assault Chaingun being brought back down to Earth. Ion Pulser being being buffed. Warthog being brought back. All good changes.

I'm actually thinking about backing out some of the Ion Pulser changes; it's feeling a bit too good. Need to also play with the same loadout with the Heavy Blaster, though, and see how that feels.

- IR Pulse being flux efficient is actually a huge change. It makes Small Energy slots Less Bad (I still won't call them "good"). A ton of High Tech ships rely on Small Energy to get things done and none of the options are good for breaking shields.

I'm hoping it'll help a few ships, yeah!

- Out of curiosity, since I didn't see anything mentioned, but any update on the "Orders" tab?

Not at this point, no. Not sure exactly where in the UI it'll end up, either; ultimately it'll be something you funnel colony income/excess credits into to help you face some tougher challenges, but the exact details are TBD.


I was expecting the sabot to be nerfed. It is now anti low tech ships because its burst outranges small ballistic PD's and AI always tries to block it with shield which makes end up being overfluxed all the time.

It would be great if sabot burst range gets significantly reduced considering the amount of damage it does.

I think it's about 50/50 as far as whether an AI ship can drop shields in time to avoid the overload or not - unless it's paired with sufficient HE damage to make the overload a sure thing, that is. It's a good missile, but ... well, I'm keeping an eye on it. It's tricky because while it's effective, it also deals little permanent damage and requires follow-through - it just creates an opportunity. Something like what you're suggesting - making it be able to be shot down by typical ballistic PD - would I think make it nearly useless.


Would it be possible to change the max size of (of one or some or all) player colonies in the setting?

Literally the patch notes item next to the one about colony size being limited to 6 says how to do that :) That said, I don't think it makes too much sense; colony production and industry counts are by and large the same as before (with relevant booster items, that is), and size 6 takes longer to reach than before. So, it's mainly just the "colony size" number that is smaller.


How about changing the faction color of the player? Is it still possible?

By editing the player.faction file, yeah.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on October 16, 2020, 09:07:01 PM
Is there a cap on how many story points you can have at once?
And has the XP curve been flattened or changed so you don't need millions of XP, even with +XP%, to get the next Story Point?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2020, 09:22:54 PM
Is there a cap on how many story points you can have at once?
And has the XP curve been flattened or changed so you don't need millions of XP, even with +XP%, to get the next Story Point?

There's no cap, and the XP curve flattens out completely for the purposes of SP gain once you reach max level, but you still need a lot of XP at that point.

(Oh, that reminds me, someone mentioned earlier that you might feel like you need to keep a story point around to use for stuff, and I hadn't responded to it directly: yeah, that's probably true, and it doesn't seem like a problem?)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kanil on October 16, 2020, 09:30:11 PM
So, actually, let me make a note to check tomorrow; it seems offhand that requiring habitable for pollution is probably the right way to go.

Re: whether it's heavy industry or a nanoforge, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much which one causes it, since a nanoforge of some sort is almost required. But I suppose this leaves the option of having a safer, low-tier heavy industry, not that it's going to generally be a good option.

I'd personally like this option the best.

As for the planet size, I think it's unfortunate that your colonies will never be as large as the core world ones. Probably doesn't matter for gameplay, but it feels bad.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Drazhya on October 16, 2020, 09:49:09 PM
There's one thing I've been meaning to bring up that slipped my mind - filter options. Will we get more of them? I'm specifically thinking of two cases. First is where I've surveyed all the planets in the sector and want to know where all the vast ruins are. Scrolling through the list and trying to spot them all is a pain.  Second is rather mod-oriented, but when I'm mounting weapons on my ships I'd like to be able to filter for weapons that match the tech category of the ship, and filter for tech category when mounting weapons in general.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on October 16, 2020, 10:06:03 PM
  • Added a number of story-related missions and a hint of an endgame threat

If the threat is not a herd of vicious migratory Buffalos I will be severely disappointed, Alex.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 16, 2020, 10:38:24 PM
With the new colony changes.....
It seems that players will prefer systems with large amounts of planets over individual planet class.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Minitialize on October 16, 2020, 11:25:37 PM
Quote
Added unique capital-class ship that can be acquired by the player. Good luck.

Reading this, I'm getting a bad omen that something big and scary is coming on top of the hinted end-game threat...

Quote
Campaign fleet AI/behavior:
          In general a bit worse at avoiding being intercepted; was too good at it
Not gonna lie, I thought this was pretty funny. I personally had no issues with this even with a large fleet, as long as I'm able to roughly calculate the speed & direction a given fleet is taking and whether or not was I going to be able to catch up depending on the course of my fleet.

Overall, I had no plans to update the game since my current campaign is going pretty well (I am the type of player that does one, extremely long playthrough. Not so fond of having to restart). But after reading the changelog... I'm starting to contemplate my decisions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 16, 2020, 11:56:08 PM
Yeah as Histidine mentioned, the graph comparing the LN and Railgun came to mind. Just loading up the simulator with a ship with 2 LNs and then 2 Railguns will show you a drastic difference. Sure the Railgun is more versatile but who cares about that when you have a Sabot in gun form almost. Also every other Needler weapon is the most expensive on OP in their respective tier, so this would just look wrong. I agree with Foof, 8 OP for both would be perfect, 7 is too low for such elite weapons.

Also I kinda forgot about Mk IX, surprised there weren't any changes to it when most of the people agree it's very underwhelming. It really doesn't justify having 1.15 efficiency, sure the dmg/shot is respectable for a kinetic weapon but it's also wildly inaccurate. I'm glad Devastator got some love tho, one meh large ballistic less :)

EDIT: Maybe I missed it, but you forgot to add that the High tech blueprint package now has Fury instead of Apogee.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 17, 2020, 12:23:36 AM
>Added a number of story-related missions and a hint of an endgame threat
I have a feeling that there's way more effort put into this, than this simple entry implies.
>Added 10 heavy machinery on game start so some scavenging can be performed right away
>Salvage effectiveness with no heavy machinery is now 25% (was: 0%)
Nice things. It was hard to salvage anything from 0, since getting heavy machinery was possible, but relied on luck much.
>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
>Heavy Armor: reduced maneuver penalty to 10%, moderately increased armor bonus
Just get rid of manoeuvrability penalty! It has no point, it just makes it hard to use on ships that benefit from it the most.
>Fury, Champion, Phantom, Revenant
Alex, you sly mod-name-taking devil!
>Brawler changes
I will miss my ballsy little frigate.
>Xyphos has no range now
Any particular reason for that change?
>Pollution doesn't require habitable - consider corrosives, radiation, etc. Good point re: bombardments, though; let me remove the "habitable" requirement there. Hmm. On the other hand, what this does is instead of disincentivizing industry on habitable worlds, it more incentivizes (somewhat) industry on a world by itself. So, actually, let me make a note to check tomorrow; it seems offhand that requiring habitable for pollution is probably the right way to go.
Very much makes sense. Pollution is only a concern, if the environment was habitable. Polluting a toxic or volcanic world would be like *** in a sewer.

That's all I can address quickly, I'm somewhat busy now.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 17, 2020, 12:42:28 AM
>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
It really does seem weird players prefer to use medium weapons when large slots are available. When on the other hand, you'd do anything to have a large energy mount instead of the medium one. I think the biggest problem are flux costs, where the majority of ships that can mount these weapons, really cannot use them decently. I'm not saying all of the large ballistics are bad, but half of them are either unusable or extremely niche where you could only fit them on one ship, and it's not even low tech.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Golde on October 17, 2020, 12:57:53 AM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NOT THE SMALL RAILGUNS

NO NO N N NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on October 17, 2020, 03:15:26 AM
Well, a few mods are getting eaten in this release.
Spoiler
Alex pictured yesterday:
(https://i.imgur.com/sUHukOe.png)
[close]

Quote
Ruins in core systems now start out as explored
Will Tia, Duzahk, and Penelope's still have searchable ruins (should they generate any)?

Quote
Nanoforges: add Pollution when installed; becomes permanent after three months
Is this going to be permanent as in absolutely final, or will you be able to 'upgrade' to a better version of the same thing later?

Quote
Added 10 new items conditionally boosting various industries
    Found where currently you would find a synchrotron or a nanoforge - so, larger pool of items
Yes! Hopefully this will be the end of having multiple items stacked in a corner removing any difficult choices.

Quote
Debris fields: can only be scavenged through once; explored fields marked on map
Quote
Entities / mission targets / etc spawning in the "outer system" will now generally spawn orbiting a far-out jump-point or planet at a medium range (3000-5000 units)
Very welcome changes.

Quote
Hammerhead:
    Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Highest priority change. Consider highlighting in notes to reflect importance.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 17, 2020, 04:05:16 AM
Population growth stuck at 0% forever no matter how many decades pass or what happens in those decades. It'd just look off.

(Pretty sure it'll stop showing the progress bar at max size; if not, it should.)

Actually, as far as ideas to make very large colonies possible to get but limited/hard/expensive/etc., what about Cryosleepers? New colonies without a Cryosleeper can only get so much growth from natural population growth and immigration before even Chico on it's worst day is able to make much of a dent, but Cryosleepers (optional: and an AI Core/Story Point to speed up the process) can push a colony to size 7/8/9/10/whatever makes the most sense?

It just comes down to me thinking that size 6 is about what's appropriate on the high end, feel-wise. You can have as many industries in a size 6 as you can now on a bigger colony, and items gives you industrial bonuses you wouldn't have had access to before. I'm not really sure why you'd want bigger colonies, beyond just "it's a bigger number". I mean, if you just want to have the largest colony in the Sector, that's already achievable with a size 6 colony :)
It's not that I need to see colonies 100+ times more populous than Chico everywhere, I just don't want colonies to hit a complete brick wall when it comes to growth when there's not really any reason why it shouldn't be able to keep growing. Growing very slowly because of the 10^x curve, sure, but growing surely all the same.

A bigger concern with this change is that it'll have some kind of unexpected result that leads to me having to babysit my colonies even more than they currently need it. To name one thing, fleet size and ground defence strength are both tied to colony size, and I have no idea if a size six colony can defend itself against a -3/-50% pirate raid without me needing to drop everything and rush to it's aid every single time. Sure, Alpha Cores to boost stuff, but than I'd have the Hegemony and their extra buff ships knocking down my doors instead. And Alpha Cores aren't exactly burning holes in my stockpile anyway. Alternatively, Red Planet, but I'd like that to not be a requirement before I start putting down colonies that can defend themselves. And especially with all these profitability nerfs I probably won't have millions of credits burning holes in my pockets for a very long time either anyway...

Incidentally, with Pather cells now fixed is there any way to stop their constant attempts at sabotage beyond riding out to destroy their bases every...what was it, 230-365 days I think? Because that's another thing that might end up getting me caught in a cycle of babysitting, if Pathers keep blowing up my Orbital Works and whoops, -3/-50% pirate raid pops up before however long it takes to get fixed.

Also also:
  • When recovering ships after combat:
    • In an officer was in command, they will be reassigned back to that ship
Typo ;).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on October 17, 2020, 04:53:25 AM
not going to lie, i see that post and feel even more now that "SOON TM" cant come soon enough, I had just started a new game a few days ago after putting it down for a while, you know to not burn out. and now this tease drops. and i just want to get my hands on it just that much more now. I mean if you need us to beg I'm sure many of us will get on our knees and shamelessly cry and beg lol.

I am very curious to see all the changes realized, especially the character level progression and all the things that go with that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cycerin on October 17, 2020, 05:52:25 AM
Quote
Added Revenant-class phase hybrid freighter/tanker

Alex I'm having such a hard time imagining this thing and I love it.

I could go through the entire list and nitpick but overall I think all the changes and additions are great. Its gonna be fun to go in blind to good ol' vanilla and experience new stuff once again.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Lith on October 17, 2020, 05:53:56 AM
Overall looks really damn good.
However there were a few things i was hoping for that do not seem to be present.
I remmeber reading somewhere that you said you would look into pirate fleets their composition and behavior in general as in at the moment they do not "feel" like pirates but more like a zombie faction - they have alot of ships, theyre bad and theyre suicidical to kill you, rather than being raiders trying to profit.
Also someway to permanently deal with pather cells (such as destroying the faction as a whole or maybe a dedicated industry required either per planet or system) rather than the periodically having to destroy their bases.

most importantly however... RELEASE WHEN?

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 17, 2020, 06:18:23 AM
Cool, cool, cool :D Thanks for keeping spoilers to a minimum!

I like that there are now more unique industry items to find while exploring. The "unique stuff to find" was really not enough for all the "places to find stuff in". (I also wouldn't mind if there were some really unique stuff to find for the explorer who's currently not that interested in founding a colony, like hulls and weapons.)

Added Phantom-class phase troop transport
Added Revenant-class phase hybrid freighter/tanker

Raiding grants significant XP

Added story option (50% bonus XP) that removes reputation penalty from raiding

Arrrph, I am a Pillaging Phase Pirate now!  ;D


 
Moving slowly":
Now at half the burn level of the slowest ship rather than being fixed at burn level 2
"Sensors" skill gives bonus to this burn level
Go Dark: forces "moving slowly" instead of having a separate movement penalty
Active Sensor Burst: can move slowly while charging it up
Still reduces sensor profile while in applicable terrain (rings, asteroid fields, debris fields)
Asteroid fields: chance for moderately damaging asteroid impacts on ships when not moving slowly
AI will move slowly through asteroid fields
Hyperspace storms: slow-moving fleets do not attract storm strikes
AI will move slowly through storms instead of trying to avoid them

Mhh, is there even enough difference left between "moving slowly" and "going dark" to warrant them being separate options? Seems like turning off your transponder and moving slowly archives almost the same thing as going dark. Minus the 50% detection range reduction, which could just be added to moving slowly.

I just had the though that it might be cool if only "go dark" would extend the phase field of phase ships around the entire fleet (and more effectively), but it would cost them CR at a slow rate. So without phase ships in your fleet there would be no "go dark" option and "move slowly" would take over that function.





Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ArkAngel on October 17, 2020, 06:35:27 AM
Oh god, a phase transport? Time to be the best smuggler ever. No one will be able to catch my sales of illicit wares!

This update looks awesome though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on October 17, 2020, 07:57:32 AM
>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
It really does seem weird players prefer to use medium weapons when large slots are available. When on the other hand, you'd do anything to have a large energy mount instead of the medium one. I think the biggest problem are flux costs, where the majority of ships that can mount these weapons, really cannot use them decently. I'm not saying all of the large ballistics are bad, but half of them are either unusable or extremely niche where you could only fit them on one ship, and it's not even low tech.
It's only rational. Onslaught's side slots have very limited coverage, so I see no point in investing much OP there. No flux to use that many large guns either, as you also noted.

Besides, Onslaught really needs flak in side large slots. The only 2 other options to cover these angles are front medium slots (but these reach forward enemies, if onyl barely so, thus can be used for offensive weapons) and central medium side slots (which easily reach front, so offensive weapons are also high priority).
Heavy Ballistics Integration would incentivize using large guns there, but... There is no good alternative to flaks in large slot (outside mods anyway). Devastator is horrible PD.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 08:06:49 AM
So much stuff.  Few things that catch my attention.

So the reborn not-Aurora is named Champion.

Onslaught getting Heavy Ballistics built-in looks nice.  Currently, I have incentives to fill them up with medium weapons.  With Conquest, Heavy Ballistics is the only reason I use Mark IX instead of more Heavy Needlers.

Light Needler being at 7 and Railgun at 8 seems fine.  With that, I probably would use Light Needler much more.  If they were both at 8, I probably would still favor Railgun over Light Needler.  Railgun has more going for it (accuracy, better DPS and shot power, steady stream of shots for suppression AI cannot weasel its way out with shield flickering).

Questions, since the notes had no info:
* What are the maximum colonies player can own, and maximum admins he can hire?
* With max player colony size at 6, do we get the cute size 7 images at size 6, or are they reserved for NPC colonies?

Quote
Incidentally, with Pather cells now fixed is there any way to stop their constant attempts at sabotage beyond riding out to destroy their bases every...what was it, 230-365 days I think? Because that's another thing that might end up getting me caught in a cycle of babysitting, if Pathers keep blowing up my Orbital Works and whoops, -3/-50% pirate raid pops up before however long it takes to get fixed.
That would make total sector colonization annoying.  The only reason I bother with alpha cores and stuff is because the Pathers are broken.

Quote
A bigger concern with this change is that it'll have some kind of unexpected result that leads to me having to babysit my colonies even more than they currently need it. To name one thing, fleet size and ground defence strength are both tied to colony size, and I have no idea if a size six colony can defend itself against a -3/-50% pirate raid without me needing to drop everything and rush to it's aid every single time. Sure, Alpha Cores to boost stuff, but than I'd have the Hegemony and their extra buff ships knocking down my doors instead. And Alpha Cores aren't exactly burning holes in my stockpile anyway. Alternatively, Red Planet, but I'd like that to not be a requirement before I start putting down colonies that can defend themselves. And especially with all these profitability nerfs I probably won't have millions of credits burning holes in my pockets for a very long time either anyway...
If this becomes a problem, I probably will aim for total core kill to eliminate the babysitting.  Babysitting is lame.  With that said, size 6 is the smallest size I would consider able to defend against expedition spam, since (without cores), star fortress has high demands that I can only comfortably meet with a size 6+ colony.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kentington on October 17, 2020, 08:09:26 AM
You've outdone yourself again, Alex! It's difficult to pick my favorite aspect of these patch notes, but the story points system in particular seems like something the genre as a whole has been missing: a way for the player to directly say "this, here, is what's most meaningful to my playstyle."

Not such a fan of the changes to colonies, though. Putting a hard cap on colony size basically forces the player to play "wide" rather than "tall" (in the parlance of 4X games). Given that the current version of Starsector already requires quite a bit of babysitting your colonies, bouncing back and forth across the Sector as threats pop up, I'm concerned that this will end up being an additional tax on the player's time. Especially since planets that are appropriate for particular industries just got rarer, thanks to the restrictions on industry-boosting items. And this change doesn't play well with an existing cap on colonies: the number of administrators/alpha cores the player has access to.

If I may offer a couple of suggestions:
One last question: with the introduction of megaprojects, is there a chance we'll eventually see some kind of terraforming option introduced into the base game?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on October 17, 2020, 08:17:10 AM
Not much to comment this time around, looking solid. Thank you for your hard work.

Good luck with the playtests Alex, I know they can be quite time consuming.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 08:27:47 AM
Not such a fan of the changes to colonies, though. Putting a hard cap on colony size basically forces the player to play "wide" rather than "tall" (in the parlance of 4X games). Given that the current version of Starsector already requires quite a bit of babysitting your colonies, bouncing back and forth across the Sector as threats pop up, I'm concerned that this will end up being an additional tax on the player's time. Especially since planets that are appropriate for particular industries just got rarer, thanks to the restrictions on industry-boosting items. And this change doesn't play well with an existing cap on colonies: the number of administrators/alpha cores the player has access to.
Unless Alex changed colony limits, playing "wide" is only possible with alpha core admin spam, which may be threatened by fixed Pather cells.

Pathers are a zombie faction just like pirates.  In other words, major babysitting problem when they can break stuff.  Pirates were already a headache without Pathers on top of them.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Artay on October 17, 2020, 08:31:16 AM
Quote
• Added a new, very rare and powerful enemy:
     • 13 new special weapons specific to this enemy
• A very limited number and subset of these can be acquired by the player during each campaign

What's this, we gettin' Blade Breakers official?  ;D
Very curious about this new enemy.

As for all the other changes - I love 'em. Especially contacts, skills revamp and story points. Also, thanks for QoL changes, these are great!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 08:39:19 AM
Quote
When producing ships at a colony, an additional fee will be charged based on the weapons/fighters installed on the ship
This extra cost does not count against the monthly production capacity
Can we tell production not to build these extra weapons (i.e., build empty hulls)?  Often, when I can build ships, I have more than enough weapons on hand, or I order the extra weapons I want too without relying on weapons provide by some random variant.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on October 17, 2020, 09:00:50 AM
In current version, I've noticed that with -10% range (level 1 ECM skill) AI still performs decently, but with -20% (maxed ECM skill) AI just gives up and gets mulched into paste without too much of an issue - it becomes really skittish and can't fight back outside of capitals and fighters.

So here's the question - what is the max range debuff without any skills in next update?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 17, 2020, 09:13:44 AM
I support Megas's objection. I don't want to pay for weapons I won't use anyway.
On another note, High Scatter Amplifier. Is it still there? If it is, its 50% range decrease is pretty punishing for energy point defence weapons. Will you do anything about that?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cyan Leader on October 17, 2020, 09:19:49 AM
Supporting this as well. By the time I have a colony I'm drowning in weapons, I only need to build a few.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 17, 2020, 09:38:03 AM
I think the idea is that the ship is ready to use on delivery if you send it somewhere other than your main stash, but I never do that.

On that note, should producing fighters/weapons also generate supplies/fuel/crew like ship production does?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 10:42:22 AM
Quote
Pirate bases should no longer spawn in systems with neutron stars/pulsars
That should be a relief.  Pirates that repeatedly respawn in those systems are a pain, and made Navigation nearly mandatory to avoid crossing pulsars twice per visit.

Quote
Bombardments will cause other in-system colonies to stops trading with the player for some time, depending on their relationship with the bombarded colony
Does that mean if I sat bomb an annoying core world, that my own colonies within a system will stop trading with each other?

Would like to see core worlds suffer shortages if they bomb worlds, too.

Quote
Added a new, very rare and powerful enemy
What does "very rare" mean?  Limited spawns like Legion14s, or (re)spawns rarely like rare drops (e.g., high-end uniques) in a Diablo game?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sergei on October 17, 2020, 11:55:37 AM
This is feels like an early christmas present. Can't wait to test it all out and start a new vanilla run. Really like the look of the new officer mechanics and i'm excited for the new raiding and marines.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 12:03:53 PM
Part of an effort to incentivize colony world variety, yeah; most items have requirements or interactions with planetary conditions.

Pollution doesn't require habitable - consider corrosives, radiation, etc. Good point re: bombardments, though; let me remove the "habitable" requirement there. Hmm. On the other hand, what this does is instead of disincentivizing industry on habitable worlds, it more incentivizes (somewhat) industry on a world by itself. So, actually, let me make a note to check tomorrow; it seems offhand that requiring habitable for pollution is probably the right way to go.

Re: whether it's heavy industry or a nanoforge, I'm not sure it actually matters all that much which one causes it, since a nanoforge of some sort is almost required. But I suppose this leaves the option of having a safer, low-tier heavy industry, not that it's going to generally be a good option.
Heavy Industry is a great filler for boosting production limits.  If I am avoiding Pather cells (I did before I knew about the Pather bug), I do not use forges on additional Heavy Industries.  Anytime I have spare industry slots, I build a Heavy Industry.  Also, heavy industry produces machines, and it is nice to have a regenerating stack of machines in colony resources.  (Waystation only handles supplies, fuel, and crew if demand is met.)

In my last game, I had three or four Heavy Industries, but only one or two of them had forges.  The rest were there to boost production so I can build a bunch of ships (or a capital) and/or weapons in a month or less.

It would be annoying if Heavy Industry alone (no forge) caused pollution.  Might as well have eco-terrorist Pathers form permanent cells if Heavy Industry alone is that destructive to the planet.  Would also make the Ludds (both of them) total hypocrites, since the Church has Industry and corrupted forge on Asher.

P.S.  Allowing pollution on non-habitables means bombing such planets is no longer a clean and easy way to destroy and steal a non-habitable enemy world.  (For habitables, I would want to decivilize it with raids then abandon it to get a clean planet to seize instead of sat bombing it.  Of course, with that abandon bug fixed, probably just bomb habitables too since Pollution is less punishing than Decivilized.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 17, 2020, 12:22:10 PM
Question re: "Revenant"

This is such an odd combination of attributes I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I imagine a phase logistic ship has higher maintenance and you pay a premium for both the reduced sensor profile and the ability for a phase ship to escape from battle.

It's also a tanker/freighter hybrid meaning it likely won't be as good as dedicated freighters or fuel tankers in those specific tasks but something like 2/3rds as good as either in both categories (i.e a Destroyer-sized ship would have 200 cargo and 400 fuel capacity). I suppose if you have a phase fleet, you'll just want to keep adding more and more of these ships.

The real questions I have is whether or not its combat worthy and/or if it's counted as "next size up" like other phase ships in terms of logistical profile. Will I want a Revenant in my fleet if I'm not going "all phase?" Does it offer anything that having both having a Buffalo and Phaeton wouldn't?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 12:28:36 PM
The main reason for me to use a phase hauler is to haul the vendor trash away after a raid with a pure phase fleet.  It is no fun being able to haul away only blueprints and not the vendor trash along with it from a raid because the current phase ships have atrocious capacity that make normal warships look like freighters in comparison.  As for hullmods, the crew and either EO or Augmented Drive took priority.  Needed crew hullmod to carry enough marines, and EO so my pure phase fleet could eat less while flying around.

I do not know if pure phase fleet will be so good at sneaking into heavily defended core worlds as they are now.  Currently, it is almost unfair stealing blueprints from Culann or Sindria with a pure phase fleet because profile is so low and shaking off patrols is so easy.

Come to think of it, how big is the Phantom and Revenant?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Golde on October 17, 2020, 12:35:32 PM
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/697223479459577926/767108377850544143/needledicker.png)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faeren on October 17, 2020, 02:19:29 PM
Kinda hoped there might be a few new frigates but I'm stoked regardless. Can't wait for release.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: nb8 on October 17, 2020, 02:47:04 PM
do you really want upgrade superpower Brawler, who can destroy the strongest ship in the game - paragon alone?
and nerf an Onslaught which is as bad as possible?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 17, 2020, 02:48:12 PM
>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
It really does seem weird players prefer to use medium weapons when large slots are available. When on the other hand, you'd do anything to have a large energy mount instead of the medium one. I think the biggest problem are flux costs, where the majority of ships that can mount these weapons, really cannot use them decently. I'm not saying all of the large ballistics are bad, but half of them are either unusable or extremely niche where you could only fit them on one ship, and it's not even low tech.

I think this is a problem with players. Large Ballistics are amazing and should always be fit (even if you're only using two for a broadside). They're absolutely superior than medium as primary weapons per OP

re: Railguns/LN's

As i said in my first post. I already consider LN's one of the best small kinetic option despite their 9 OP cost. Like, if we remember our insights from the capacitor/dissipation tests LN's are the small kinetic that lets you dump the most damage out immediately. Sure they spend flux faster but that doesn't matter in the end because spending flux faster is often ideal. I do fear this kinda just makes them clearly the best
>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
It really does seem weird players prefer to use medium weapons when large slots are available. When on the other hand, you'd do anything to have a large energy mount instead of the medium one. I think the biggest problem are flux costs, where the majority of ships that can mount these weapons, really cannot use them decently. I'm not saying all of the large ballistics are bad, but half of them are either unusable or extremely niche where you could only fit them on one ship, and it's not even low tech.
It's only rational. Onslaught's side slots have very limited coverage, so I see no point in investing much OP there. No flux to use that many large guns either, as you also noted.

Besides, Onslaught really needs flak in side large slots. The only 2 other options to cover these angles are front medium slots (but these reach forward enemies, if onyl barely so, thus can be used for offensive weapons) and central medium side slots (which easily reach front, so offensive weapons are also high priority).
Heavy Ballistics Integration would incentivize using large guns there, but... There is no good alternative to flaks in large slot (outside mods anyway). Devastator is horrible PD.

If you have IPDAI you do not need flack

As an example. My Broadside Onslaughts from the "why can't the onslaught be a real battleship" in which i showed an Onslaught being a real battleship did not have any flack and were still absolute stonkers.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 03:41:57 PM
As for the planet size, I think it's unfortunate that your colonies will never be as large as the core world ones. Probably doesn't matter for gameplay, but it feels bad.

That's quite subjective, so: fair enough! I just don't think it makes in-fiction sense.


There's one thing I've been meaning to bring up that slipped my mind - filter options. Will we get more of them? I'm specifically thinking of two cases. First is where I've surveyed all the planets in the sector and want to know where all the vast ruins are. Scrolling through the list and trying to spot them all is a pain.  Second is rather mod-oriented, but when I'm mounting weapons on my ships I'd like to be able to filter for weapons that match the tech category of the ship, and filter for tech category when mounting weapons in general.

Hmm, maybe - I've been meaning to have another look at the planet screen, but honestly that's been low-priority and I'm not sure when/if that'll happen. Weapons-wise, that seems less likely; the UI for that would be tricky and it's not really a "functional" category, just visual.


Quote
Added unique capital-class ship that can be acquired by the player. Good luck.

Reading this, I'm getting a bad omen that something big and scary is coming on top of the hinted end-game threat...

Hmmm.

Overall, I had no plans to update the game since my current campaign is going pretty well (I am the type of player that does one, extremely long playthrough. Not so fond of having to restart). But after reading the changelog... I'm starting to contemplate my decisions.

Well, it's not out yet - these are in-dev notes - so you don't quite have to worry about it :)


>Added a number of story-related missions and a hint of an endgame threat
I have a feeling that there's way more effort put into this, than this simple entry implies.

(Yeah, that's... very accurate.)

Just get rid of manoeuvrability penalty! It has no point, it just makes it hard to use on ships that benefit from it the most.

Ah - I think it's thematic, and can be countered in many ways. I'd rather the hullmod be strong enough to warrant it; I think that's more interesting. Hmm - maybe upping to 25% and reducing the hullmod cost might be a more interesting way to go, actually, since 10% is mostly thematic anyway. Will likely leave it as-is for now, though.


>Xyphos has no range now
Any particular reason for that change?

Yes, but - please bear with me - I forget exactly what it was.


>Onslaught: Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration
I've got a feeling that there's an issue not with Onslaught and Conquest, but with large ballistic weapons instead...
It really does seem weird players prefer to use medium weapons when large slots are available. When on the other hand, you'd do anything to have a large energy mount instead of the medium one. I think the biggest problem are flux costs, where the majority of ships that can mount these weapons, really cannot use them decently. I'm not saying all of the large ballistics are bad, but half of them are either unusable or extremely niche where you could only fit them on one ship, and it's not even low tech.

To me it seems like a clear-cut case of "HBI goes on ships where the large mounts point every which way so you can actually justify putting large weapons in all of them".





Quote
Ruins in core systems now start out as explored
Will Tia, Duzahk, and Penelope's still have searchable ruins (should they generate any)?

I believe so, yeah.

Quote
Nanoforges: add Pollution when installed; becomes permanent after three months
Is this going to be permanent as in absolutely final, or will you be able to 'upgrade' to a better version of the same thing later?

Hmm, I don't quite understand the question. The Pollution condition will be permanent and nothing removes it, if that's what you're asking.

Quote
Hammerhead:
    Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Highest priority change. Consider highlighting in notes to reflect importance.

(Yeah, good call probably.)


It's not that I need to see colonies 100+ times more populous than Chico everywhere, I just don't want colonies to hit a complete brick wall when it comes to growth when there's not really any reason why it shouldn't be able to keep growing. Growing very slowly because of the 10^x curve, sure, but growing surely all the same.

I mean, they stop regardless of the system, the question is just when that happens.

A bigger concern with this change is that it'll have some kind of unexpected result that leads to me having to babysit my colonies even more than they currently need it. To name one thing, fleet size and ground defence strength are both tied to colony size, and I have no idea if a size six colony can defend itself against a -3/-50% pirate raid without me needing to drop everything and rush to it's aid every single time. Sure, Alpha Cores to boost stuff, but than I'd have the Hegemony and their extra buff ships knocking down my doors instead. And Alpha Cores aren't exactly burning holes in my stockpile anyway. Alternatively, Red Planet, but I'd like that to not be a requirement before I start putting down colonies that can defend themselves. And especially with all these profitability nerfs I probably won't have millions of credits burning holes in my pockets for a very long time either anyway...

Incidentally, with Pather cells now fixed is there any way to stop their constant attempts at sabotage beyond riding out to destroy their bases every...what was it, 230-365 days I think? Because that's another thing that might end up getting me caught in a cycle of babysitting, if Pathers keep blowing up my Orbital Works and whoops, -3/-50% pirate raid pops up before however long it takes to get fixed.

Fair! More of a reason to tweak those mechanics, though, than it is to allow stuff that makes no in-fiction sense. (Also, there's an item that boosts fleet sizes *a lot*, so I'm pretty sure it'll be doable anyway. But I need to have a look at the frequency of expeditions etc, regardless, so those things become an "interesting event" that you interact with and aren't so frequent that it's a chore.)

Also also:
  • When recovering ships after combat:
    • In an officer was in command, they will be reassigned back to that ship
Typo ;).

Thank you, fixed!


not going to lie, i see that post and feel even more now that "SOON TM" cant come soon enough, I had just started a new game a few days ago after putting it down for a while, you know to not burn out. and now this tease drops. and i just want to get my hands on it just that much more now. I mean if you need us to beg I'm sure many of us will get on our knees and shamelessly cry and beg lol.

I am very curious to see all the changes realized, especially the character level progression and all the things that go with that.

:D


Quote
Added Revenant-class phase hybrid freighter/tanker

Alex I'm having such a hard time imagining this thing and I love it.

Phase ships gotta do something weird, right? It's their motif!

I could go through the entire list and nitpick but overall I think all the changes and additions are great. Its gonna be fun to go in blind to good ol' vanilla and experience new stuff once again.

Cool! If something in particular does seem "off", I definitely don't mind hearing about it.

I remmeber reading somewhere that you said you would look into pirate fleets their composition and behavior in general as in at the moment they do not "feel" like pirates but more like a zombie faction - they have alot of ships, theyre bad and theyre suicidical to kill you, rather than being raiders trying to profit.

Hmm, I'm fairly sure I didn't say anything that specific. If I was talking about fleet composition, then it feels likely that this is covered by fleets being less top-heavy etc. As much as what you're saying makes sense, you also kind of just need some enemies to blow up, so... I mean, I'm not opposed to nods in that direction here and there, but just in general, going for a "real" pirate feel has downsides, I think.

Also someway to permanently deal with pather cells (such as destroying the faction as a whole or maybe a dedicated industry required either per planet or system) rather than the periodically having to destroy their bases.

Being able to deal with them permanently doesn't seem like a good idea. Going to look at the frequency of these types of events (and, in fact, I think I might've made some tweaks already; not sure if it's in the patch notes or not.)

most importantly however... RELEASE WHEN?

When ready!


Cool, cool, cool :D Thanks for keeping spoilers to a minimum!

(I try! Have to spoil things sometimes, though, since it's kind of tough to not show off stuff that might get some attention... just in general, doing any sort of "marketing" (even in a broad sense) and "not spoiling things" are... not entirely at odds, but somewhat at odds.)

I like that there are now more unique industry items to find while exploring. The "unique stuff to find" was really not enough for all the "places to find stuff in". (I also wouldn't mind if there were some really unique stuff to find for the explorer who's currently not that interested in founding a colony, like hulls and weapons.)

Who's to say there isn't? :)

Arrrph, I am a Pillaging Phase Pirate now!  ;D

Excellent, excellent!

Mhh, is there even enough difference left between "moving slowly" and "going dark" to warrant them being separate options? Seems like turning off your transponder and moving slowly archives almost the same thing as going dark. Minus the 50% detection range reduction, which could just be added to moving slowly.

I just had the though that it might be cool if only "go dark" would extend the phase field of phase ships around the entire fleet (and more effectively), but it would cost them CR at a slow rate. So without phase ships in your fleet there would be no "go dark" option and "move slowly" would take over that function.

"Go dark" is a bit easier to use for a longer period, just usability-wise, and it auto-toggles the transponder off, so that's more convenient, too. "Move slowly" is more of a thing you do intermittently. Still, I get what you're saying, hmm.


but... There is no good alternative to flaks in large slot (outside mods anyway). Devastator is horrible PD.

It did get buffed. And if it costs as much as regular flak, I'm not sure that I can agree that it's worse there. Regardless, it's certainly not worse *not*, it deletes fighter wings.


* What are the maximum colonies player can own, and maximum admins he can hire?

2 and 2, with +1 to each from a skill.

* With max player colony size at 6, do we get the cute size 7 images at size 6, or are they reserved for NPC colonies?

Ahh, good catch! Made those show up at 6 (and moved the small image to only show up at size 3, instead of 3 and 4).



Yeah as Histidine mentioned, the graph comparing the LN and Railgun came to mind. Just loading up the simulator with a ship with 2 LNs and then 2 Railguns will show you a drastic difference. Sure the Railgun is more versatile but who cares about that when you have a Sabot in gun form almost. Also every other Needler weapon is the most expensive on OP in their respective tier, so this would just look wrong. I agree with Foof, 8 OP for both would be perfect, 7 is too low for such elite weapons.

Also I kinda forgot about Mk IX, surprised there weren't any changes to it when most of the people agree it's very underwhelming. It really doesn't justify having 1.15 efficiency, sure the dmg/shot is respectable for a kinetic weapon but it's also wildly inaccurate. I'm glad Devastator got some love tho, one meh large ballistic less :)

Hmm, I will keep it in mind. Wasn't really thinking about the Mark IX - it kind of seems the default, cheap, and somewhat subpar option. I'll give it a look.

EDIT: Maybe I missed it, but you forgot to add that the High tech blueprint package now has Fury instead of Apogee.

Ah yeah, one of those things that didn't make the notes - there's lots of minor stuff like that.


You've outdone yourself again, Alex! It's difficult to pick my favorite aspect of these patch notes, but the story points system in particular seems like something the genre as a whole has been missing: a way for the player to directly say "this, here, is what's most meaningful to my playstyle."

Not such a fan of the changes to colonies, though. Putting a hard cap on colony size basically forces the player to play "wide" rather than "tall" (in the parlance of 4X games).

Thank you!

Re: colonies - I don't think that's actually true, and in fact I don't think changing the colony size limit has many *gameplay* ramifications at all! Not in the presence of items that boost production, and story-point based industry improvements. You can do basically the same things as before, some maybe a bit worse, some a bit better. It's literally just a "number got smaller for feel reasons" sort of thing, mostly. I mean, colony income *will* be less - but not because of the size change, but rather because of the removal of the stability bonus to income.

(Well, if you build like 50+ colonies with AI Cores etc for income, then that will have less income than before because there won't be enough booster items to go around. But that's kind of a degenerate case that I'm not concerned about, if that makes sense.)

One last question: with the introduction of megaprojects, is there a chance we'll eventually see some kind of terraforming option introduced into the base game?

Maybe! Nothing I'd call a plan, but if it looks necessary for story reasons, or there's something particualrly compelling about it that comes up. This isn't something I'm actively aiming for, though.


Not much to comment this time around, looking solid. Thank you for your hard work.

Good luck with the playtests Alex, I know they can be quite time consuming.

Thank you! (And, ah, need to get through a number of things before even getting to those...)


Can we tell production not to build these extra weapons (i.e., build empty hulls)?  Often, when I can build ships, I have more than enough weapons on hand, or I order the extra weapons I want too without relying on weapons provide by some random variant.

You can't, no. You can however sell them and weapon sell price is a lot better now. I'd also imagine weapon stockpiles will be a bit lower because selling looted weapons can be a significant portion of your income.


In current version, I've noticed that with -10% range (level 1 ECM skill) AI still performs decently, but with -20% (maxed ECM skill) AI just gives up and gets mulched into paste without too much of an issue - it becomes really skittish and can't fight back outside of capitals and fighters.

So here's the question - what is the max range debuff without any skills in next update?

Hmm, interesting, I'll need to keep an eye on it. The max debuff is 20%, but deployed ships grant a flat +2% each. Gunnery Implants also grants +6%/+3% when in frigate/destroyer. Given both of these, it'll be a lot easier to hit the limit if you have smaller ships on hand, which also means they have a shorter range, which may go some ways towards alleviating this.


On another note, High Scatter Amplifier. Is it still there? If it is, its 50% range decrease is pretty punishing for energy point defence weapons. Will you do anything about that?

It's still there. There's a tradeoff with using it; I'm not sure that's something that needs anything done about.



On that note, should producing fighters/weapons also generate supplies/fuel/crew like ship production does?

Since it does that, I'm going to go with "yes" :) IIRC that's "free" anyway, I don't think you pay for it.


Quote
Bombardments will cause other in-system colonies to stops trading with the player for some time, depending on their relationship with the bombarded colony
Does that mean if I sat bomb an annoying core world, that my own colonies within a system will stop trading with each other?

Hmm? No, it's just the usual "your recent hostile actions around <market> blah blah" and you can't buy/sell things there for a while.


Quote
Added a new, very rare and powerful enemy
What does "very rare" mean?  Limited spawns like Legion14s, or (re)spawns rarely like rare drops (e.g., high-end uniques) in a Diablo game?

I'll just say that it's not farmable.


This is feels like an early christmas present. Can't wait to test it all out and start a new vanilla run. Really like the look of the new officer mechanics and i'm excited for the new raiding and marines.

Thank you :D Really looking forward to getting it out there, actually - super excited about it!


Question re: "Revenant"

This is such an odd combination of attributes I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I imagine a phase logistic ship has higher maintenance and you pay a premium for both the reduced sensor profile and the ability for a phase ship to escape from battle.

It's also a tanker/freighter hybrid meaning it likely won't be as good as dedicated freighters or fuel tankers in those specific tasks but something like 2/3rds as good as either in both categories (i.e a Destroyer-sized ship would have 200 cargo and 400 fuel capacity). I suppose if you have a phase fleet, you'll just want to keep adding more and more of these ships.

The real questions I have is whether or not its combat worthy and/or if it's counted as "next size up" like other phase ships in terms of logistical profile. Will I want a Revenant in my fleet if I'm not going "all phase?" Does it offer anything that having both having a Buffalo and Phaeton wouldn't?

You're mostly on the right track here, yeah. It's not a combat ship *at all*, and what it offers over other freighters is "phase field".


Come to think of it, how big is the Phantom and Revenant?

Destroyer and cruiser, respectively.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 17, 2020, 03:56:40 PM
Re: Ballistics Integration on the Onslaught (and large ballistics in general on the Onslaught):

The reason this is needed in my opinion is for 2 reasons:

1) For frontal builds, side mounted guns detract from the ship's ability to deal with frontal targets by taking up OP. This is mitigated if there are options which are cheap but good at dealing with smaller threats that might get in close to flank the ship. A large ballistic mount that is cheap, can hit small targets, has relatively short range, and is reasonably flux efficient just doesn't exist. Something like a Mk IX (relatively low DPS, but cheap high impact kinetic) would be good if it wasn't for the poor efficiency and terrible accuracy. Devastator for anti small ship/fighters is ok, but flux hungry for that role. If the goal is for good frontal Onslaughts to actually use large mounts on the sides, a 20 OP rebate is pretty nice, because there aren't really any appropriate guns.

2) The only really good option for the center large mount in a frontal build that correctly balances with the TPCs for a frontal build is the hellbore, then piling on medium kinetics. Even this is slightly more than the rule of thumb 1/3 flux budget dedicated to anti-armor/hull, but thats ok. I have a whole spiel of flux and efficiency calculations, but it comes down to this: All large kinetics are worse than medium kinetics for flux limited, mount plentiful ships (Onslaught, Dominator), and a Haephastus/Mjolnir + the TPCs is too much of the flux budget dedicated to non-kinetic for a general purpose ship. Devastator is a possibility for frontal anti-fighter/small ship might work as well, but leaves the ship reliant on its missiles for armor breaking.

Broadside Onslaught doesn't really care about the TPC's for the combined main battery so ignores the above, but they are their own special kind of magic.

Quote from: Goumindong
Large Ballistics are amazing and should always be fit (even if you're only using two for a broadside). They're absolutely superior than medium as primary weapons per OP. ...

2 comments:
1) Onslaughts have plenty of mounts and enough OP to take 50 vents and the flux boosting hullmod every time, so what they care about is flux efficiency in their kinetics. Large kinetics, for the Onslaught, are simply worse than medium kinetics. Mk IX: accuracy is bad, efficiency low, damage/OP medium (if it can hit). Storm needler: range bad and windup/flux cost extremely AI unfriendly. Efficiency good, but noticeably worse than Heavy Needler. Damage/OP great, but does not make up for downsides. Gauss: efficiency is terrible, despite great range and high penetration (great on Conquests because they have the flux). Low damage/OP.

Contrast to the Heavy needler and all lose. Even contrast to the the Heavy Autocannon and they lose. Theres just no good kinetic large for the Onslaught.

2) For HE weapons the Large Ballistics are pretty good. Hellbore is efficiency king and while low DPS will crack armor wide open, and the Hephaestus is pretty good HE and a great hull crusher (its comparison to the HIL is an entirely different matter...). BUT for non-broadsiders, the TPCs take up much of the available budget for this (see above).



IMO a lot of the large ballistic weapon problems would be solved if the Mk IX were a slightly more expensive, but better weapon. I'd pay 25 OP for the same gun at a tighter spread and 1.0 efficiency.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on October 17, 2020, 03:58:43 PM
Hmm, interesting, I'll need to keep an eye on it. The max debuff is 20%, but deployed ships grant a flat +2% each. Gunnery Implants also grants +6%/+3% when in frigate/destroyer. Given both of these, it'll be a lot easier to hit the limit if you have smaller ships on hand, which also means they have a shorter range, which may go some ways towards alleviating this.

Try getting a cruiser and max ECM skills, ships of same size will try backing off because of being outranged even more than they normally do.

That change will make game way easier for competent players, which is a shame in my eyes - I personally enjoy battles where AI puts up decent challenge. I hope it will be something I could change in the config files at very least.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 04:02:26 PM
@Thaago: I appreciate the detailed analysis! Made a few notes re: the Mark IX.

Try getting a cruiser and max ECM skills, ships of same size will try backing off because of being outranged even more than they normally do.

Will do; thanks! (Actually, I'll probably just hack in 20 ECM for the player side for test purposes, but, right, thanks for pointing out a scenario to look at.)

Edit: giving it a quick try with some cruiser-vs-cruiser mirror matches, not seeing much functional difference between 10% and 20%; the side with the edge wins reliably, but it's kind of expected. I guess it may play differently in a not 1-1, though.

That change will make game way easier for competent players, which is a shame in my eyes - I personally enjoy battles where AI puts up decent challenge. I hope it will be something I could change in the config files at very least.

Hmm, how so? You're paying for getting 20% by needing overall weaker ships, so I'm not sure how this makes things easier - could you clarify? I mean, I could see how it might not eliminate the problem, but that's different.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 17, 2020, 04:03:03 PM
The Xyphos change to have 0 range might be so the AI won't send them off but is instead forced to keep them close where they act as a compliment to said ship's own weapons.

I remember that being discussed in the past at least, and it made a lot of sense to me since it happens to be the way in which i tend to use Xyphos myself.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 04:04:06 PM
... ah, yeah, that sounds very much right.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 17, 2020, 04:26:43 PM
All large kinetics are worse than medium kinetics for flux limited, mount plentiful ships

So... i don't think this is true but it also doesn't have to be false in order to make large ballistic make sense.

There are two reasons its not true

1) Ships can be OP limited in addition to being flux limited and mount plentiful. A HN produces 250 DPS for 15 OP to 800(16.6 DPS/OP). A Mark IX produce 348 DPS for 18 OP to 900 range(19.3 DPS/OP). (The Mark IX at 100 armor damage also penetrates fairly well).

As we established in the cap/distributor thread we don't really care as much about flux limiting on DPS we care about cap and raw DPS. We want to trade our flux into theirs as fast as possible. This is especially valuable on a ship like the onslaught. So the HN (probably the best medium kinetic) does 16.6 DPS/OP. The Mark IX does 19.3 and it starts shooting earlier due to its higher range. There are better medium kinetics (HA is slightly better at 21.4) but we still have the range issue as if we're willing to drop down to a lower range the storm needler offers an absurd 26.78 DPS/OP

2) Because of the value of hull mods(and capacitor) it is functionally impossible to not be OP limited. In my Broadslaughts as an example i was still heavily OP limited (didn't get a chance to fit the Omni shield i wanted!) and i even would have empty slots. If i had fit medium slots in my large i would have had more OP sure, but i would have been better off using large slots and leaving the mediums empty because the large slots were just more OP efficient and that was my limiter.


-----

The reason that your supposition can be true while still making the overall conclusion false is because you don't need to fit kinetic into large slots on ships that have lots of slots. Kinetic damage does not have exponential scaling due to its lack of utility against armor. HE damage does. As a result, larger HE weapons just tend to be better OP for OP. You need about 3 Heavy Maulers to make a HAG.(or a bit over 2 mortars*) Which is 36 OP. the HAG takes up 20. The HM's do have better range and penetration (400 vs 240) but only 400 vs 480 DPS. Either way a Hellbore is 15.625 DPS/OP while a Mauler is 11.083(with much worse penetration) So if you're trying to be efficient you're probably fitting HE in your large ballistic anyway. Either HAG or Hellbore. It just makes sense given that you're not slot limited.

*which while great for OP does mean you're going to need a high efficient high DPS/OP 700 range kinetic weapon and that means you're fitting a storm needler.

edit: You might say "but ships back away was also a thing that mitigated it" and the answer is sure. But flux dumping with the most efficient combination of HE/Kinetic reduces the likelihood that ships get to back away. Once a ships shields are down you want to pour in as much HE as you can. And to do that you need efficient HE and as much OP as possible for extra caps.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: xenoargh on October 17, 2020, 04:34:55 PM
1.  Holy changelogs.

2.  Uh, is JDK 8 supported yet?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 17, 2020, 04:42:05 PM
Quote
Fair! More of a reason to tweak those mechanics, though, than it is to allow stuff that makes no in-fiction sense. (Also, there's an item that boosts fleet sizes *a lot*, so I'm pretty sure it'll be doable anyway. But I need to have a look at the frequency of expeditions etc, regardless, so those things become an "interesting event" that you interact with and aren't so frequent that it's a chore.)
True, although are those items usable enough that I don't need to find a ridiculously specific system to put down my first colonies and/or have to compromise in some way to actually use them? For instance I wouldn't fancy using those items if it caused factions to send expeditions or ticked off the now fixed Pathers, since that would only replace one problem with another.

Speaking of expeditions, "interesting event that you interact with" just sounds like "annually mandatory babysitting session" to me, honestly. And like it'd limit playstyle because if I have to intervene with my own fleet I'd pretty much be on a timer to amass a final endgame doomfleet whenever I put my first colony down. That or try to keep my colonies small enough to avoid getting targeted by expeditions, but that either defeats the purpose of having colonies (industry to build your own ships, large enough stable income to support your fleet, (re-)supply points with sufficient items to keep the fleet going and/or grab stuff to fulfil the odd trade contract) or merely move the goalposts (small colonies can't defend themselves against -3/-50% pirate raids, so instead of dealing with expeditions I'd be routinely dealing with them).

Basically, I'm worried about colonies being overly nerfed in terms of them becoming a permanent ball and chain for the player, like I could be called to drop everything and rush over whenever the Luddites randomly decide that my Extreme Tectonic Activity Extreme Heat High Gravity volcanic mining colony is too much of a "free haven for various undesirables". PS: Any chance of getting a mechanic where you can capture rival faction people and condemn them to a prison colony? Just, you know, curious ::). Ignore the heavily guarded transport ship being prepared in the background...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avanitia on October 17, 2020, 04:44:12 PM
giving it a quick try with some cruiser-vs-cruiser mirror matches, not seeing much functional difference between 10% and 20%; the side with the edge wins reliably, but it's kind of expected. I guess it may play differently in a not 1-1, though.

Yes, it's more noticeable in fleet combat where entire fleet might back off due to losing large chunk of range.

Hmm, how so? You're paying for getting 20% by needing overall weaker ships, so I'm not sure how this makes things easier - could you clarify? I mean, I could see how it might not eliminate the problem, but that's different.

With capital ships being less prevalent in next update (from what I understand at least?) player getting ECM cap can be frequent occurence in early- and mid-game.

Smaller ships doesn't mean weaker <.< I can deploy more (especially with soft cap in next update, efficiency be damned!)
Groups of frigates and destroyers don't care about losses as much and have more missiles to throw at enemy, heh. Officers help too.

If enemy cruiser loses 20% range, my ships will engage it more readily, which isn't exactly a bad thing, but issue is bigger when you compare 2 ships of same size and apply that across entire battlespace - my Lasher beats up enemy Lasher without issues due to range disparity and finishes it off with missiles and so on. It's the initial hard flux buildup that plays a big role - one ship builds up hard flux of another before it can even fire. I feel by incentivizing using smaller ships more often, it makes game easier in a way? I don't really know how to explain that.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 17, 2020, 05:11:40 PM
...

Speaking of expeditions, "interesting event that you interact with" just sounds like "annually mandatory babysitting session" to me, honestly. And like it'd limit playstyle because if I have to intervene with my own fleet I'd pretty much be on a timer to amass a final endgame doomfleet whenever I put my first colony down.
...

I've read things like this a lot while lurking in these forums and i still don't understand it. In some of my playthroughs i've started colonizing as soon as half a year into the game and even then i've never found expeditions to be a problem. When fighting them myself i've usually found them to be underwhelming and by the time they might get bigger the colonies tend to be defended enough that they don't even need me.
Maybe they become a problem once they send multiple "very strong" fleets but in my experience they're not in any kind of a hurry to do that. Maybe they will eventually if you keep playing but by that time you'd have all the ships you want in your own fleet anyway.

Now the first pirate fleet, that appears to be scripted to be sent within a few months and tends to be a lot bigger than the ones that spawn from bases afterwards, *that* can be a challenge if you rushed for colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 17, 2020, 05:21:06 PM
I think maybe ECM should apply straight to the enemy fleet instead of competing with their ECM. This would make ECM less of a battle-winner, but it would still shift how battles work by making long range builds relatively weaker than normal.


RE HBI on Onslaught: I don't think it addresses the ship's core issues with flux usage and armor vs. shields.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 17, 2020, 05:45:51 PM
I greatly enjoy the debate we are having on this topic! I think we both agree that large ballistic HE weapons are in a good place, with the Hellbore and Hephaestus occupying two different, but valuable, niches. I disagree on the kinetics however. (Spoilers so those not interested don't need to see all this...)

Spoiler
Quote from: Goumindong
... As we established in the cap/distributor thread we don't really care as much about flux limiting on DPS we care about cap and raw DPS. We want to trade our flux into theirs as fast as possible. This is especially valuable on a ship like the onslaught.  ...

I don't agree with this interpretation. If its true than optimal ships should have max caps, filling vents with leftovers... and yet extensive playtesting has not settled on that as optimal outside of a few very special ships. I note that your own Broadside Onslaught has 60 vents and 6 caps.

I will agree that it is important to quickly damage enemy ships in order to mitigate incoming damage, and so Onslaughts should be overfluxed.

Even going with it as the goal though:

Quote
... So the HN (probably the best medium kinetic) does 16.6 DPS/OP. The Mark IX does 19.3 and it starts shooting earlier due to its higher range. There are better medium kinetics (HA is slightly better at 21.4) but we still have the range issue as if we're willing to drop down to a lower range the storm needler offers an absurd 26.78 DPS/OP.

I take issue with this, because DPS/OP without taking into account efficiency is an oversimplified stat to the point of being meaningless: it leaves out information which is critical to a complete evaluation. Consider for example the HN vs the HA: as you state, 21.4 DPS/OP is better than 16.6 DPS/OP... but the HN is a better weapon than the HA for a lot of reasons, including that it can output 25% more damage on the same flux pool. A HN can output 43% more damage to a target than a Mk IX on the same flux pool. Even Onslaughts have limited flux pools, and the efficiency with which they spend them is much more important than DPS/OP, because once they are maxed more OP cannot buy more flux stats.

If DPS/OP is what matters, then Storm Needler is the best weapon by a mile with its very high DPS (and decent efficiency even). But... its easy to test and AI Onslaught variants with it just don't perform that well because of its other downsides. The contradiction shows that a premise is false: DPS/OP is not the most important stat, and analysis based on DPS/OP is invalid without other data.

Then there is accuracy. Against a capital Mk IXs are going to land most shots. Against smaller targets, they are going to miss most shots: both their DPS and efficiency go down considerably. Its hard to exactly quantify this without data from combat analytics, which I don't have right now. It would be an interesting project to compile some real play accuracy data on these guns so we could put some numbers here!
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 05:55:52 PM
2.  Uh, is JDK 8 supported yet?

You can edit settings to let the game run with it already, but you'd probably want to tweak GC behavior etc (via parameters) to get it to a good place.

Speaking of expeditions, "interesting event that you interact with" just sounds like "annually mandatory babysitting session" to me, honestly.

Eh, that really depends. I mean, I get where you're coming from, but e.g. (numbers totally made up) if an expedition comes once every ten cycles and is a huge problem you have to scramble to deal with, then that's going to feel differently than a drop-feed of weaker stuff every couple of months. So it's definitely a thing where how much of it there is and what it does/what kind of response it requires changes it qualitatively.

Basically, I'm worried about colonies being overly nerfed in terms of them becoming a permanent ball and chain for the player

Like I said, fair concern, but per my previous response, I think it'll be ok. And if not, it'll need tuning!

(I don't think the item restrictions are *that* punishing, that is, you should be able to find a planet that you can use any given item on without too much trouble. An optimal one is another question, but that's already the case...)

... I feel by incentivizing using smaller ships more often, it makes game easier in a way? I don't really know how to explain that.

Hmm, alright - I'm not sure that makes sense. Not saying it's wrong or anything, but, as you probably realize, that didn't quite clear it up :)

Consider that you're also much more likely to be facing some EW from the enemy fleet, too, from random frigates/destroyers that have an officer with Gunnery Implants - so it's not something that, say, requires the specific faction to have EW as a commander skill.


I've read things like this a lot while lurking in these forums and i still don't understand it. In some of my playthroughs i've started colonizing as soon as half a year into the game and even then i've never found expeditions to be a problem. When fighting them myself i've usually found them to be underwhelming and by the time they might get bigger the colonies tend to be defended enough that they don't even need me.
Maybe they become a problem once they send multiple "very strong" fleets but in my experience they're not in any kind of a hurry to do that. Maybe they will eventually if you keep playing but by that time you'd have all the ships you want in your own fleet anyway.

Now the first pirate fleet, that appears to be scripted to be sent within a few months and tends to be a lot bigger than the ones that spawn from bases afterwards, *that* can be a challenge if you rushed for colonies.

FWIW, what you're describing sounds exactly right to me. If I had to guess, I think there's a tendency to gloss over this interval - which probably makes up for most of the playthroughs for many players - because it's not a "stable end state", if that makes sense. Which, I mean, fair enough on that count, but also a grain of salt.


I think maybe ECM should apply straight to the enemy fleet instead of competing with their ECM. This would make ECM less of a battle-winner, but it would still shift how battles work by making long range builds relatively weaker than normal.

Hmm - that'd just effectively reduce range by 20% across the board for everything, no? At least in many, many cases.


RE HBI on Onslaught: I don't think it addresses the ship's core issues with flux usage and armor vs. shields.

Well, you're right about that - but those are ship features rather than ship issues! Which isn't to say that it's a perfectly balanced ship or whatever, but rather than anything that's done to balance it ought to work around these, imo.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 17, 2020, 06:11:32 PM
IMO a lot of the large ballistic weapon problems would be solved if the Mk IX were a slightly more expensive, but better weapon. I'd pay 25 OP for the same gun at a tighter spread and 1.0 efficiency.
I don't want Mk. IX fundamentally changed (like "premiumizing" it); it's nice to have a cheap 'n practical option for large kinetics in contrast with Gauss Cannon and Storm Needler. Less recoil and more efficiency certainly wouldn't hurt though.
(It's possible that many of the times I'm currently using Mk. IX, I should downsize to a Heavy Needler instead...)

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 06:14:26 PM
P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

0.95a - the way I've been using it, 0.9.5a would imply a 5th hotfix-and-balancing patch of the 0.9a release. ... did I mess up and say 0.9.5 somewhere?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 17, 2020, 06:21:57 PM
P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

0.95a - the way I've been using it, 0.9.5a would imply a 5th hotfix-and-balancing patch of the 0.9a release. ... did I mess up and say 0.9.5 somewhere?
No uses of 0.9.5 somewhere, it just struck me as strange compared to 0.9.1, 0.8.1, 0.7.2, 0.7.1 etc.
But I noticed that a previous version used 0.65 as well, huh.

(It just looks odd, mathematically speaking I'd expect the number comparison to go e.g. 0.95 > 0.90 > 0.10 > 0.9)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 17, 2020, 06:25:44 PM
IMO a lot of the large ballistic weapon problems would be solved if the Mk IX were a slightly more expensive, but better weapon. I'd pay 25 OP for the same gun at a tighter spread and 1.0 efficiency.
I don't want Mk. IX fundamentally changed (like "premiumizing" it); it's nice to have a cheap 'n practical option for large kinetics in contrast with Gauss Cannon and Storm Needler. Less recoil and more efficiency certainly wouldn't hurt though.
(It's possible that many of the times I'm currently using Mk. IX, I should downsize to a Heavy Needler instead...)

P.S. Is the version number supposed to be 0.95 or 0.9.5?

For me its a matter of gunnery implants 1 to reduce recoil: With the skill, the gun is a decent budget option when premiums aren't available - as you say cheap and practical. (Even though I complain about efficiency, its still kinetic so will get the job done 'ok ish'). Without the skill, it misses an improbable number of shots (as does the HAC - was just testing and its firing arc at capital ranges is wider than an Onslaught, so it will even have a significant miss rate against enemy capitals).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 06:27:30 PM
(Hmm - I guess I'm just thinking of it as a decimal point number. At least, of the first part that's inching up towards 1.0)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Octal on October 17, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Honestly, the thing I'm most excited for, before everything else, is simply the UI scaling.

I've basically stopped playing until the next update because I dislike the workaround for now.
Good stuffs though!


Also, to add onto the version naming talk:
If you're using "0.9.1" and "0.9" for example, as far as I recall it makes sense to show it as "0.9.0" instead of just "0.9"
Like, if you're showing iterative hotfix versions then that position should be kept as 0 if none have occured yet..

maybe im just dumb tho
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 17, 2020, 06:42:11 PM
I don't agree with this interpretation. If its true than optimal ships should have max caps, filling vents with leftovers... and yet extensive playtesting has not settled on that as optimal outside of a few very special ships. I note that your own Broadside Onslaught has 60 vents and 6 caps.

Yes but this isn't because i don't want to trade my flux for theirs as fast as possible. Its because i don't face things for which i need 60 caps(more than i need extra hull mods) and because i am not limited by being at maximum cap due to being an armor tanker as a shield tanker is. Edit: my shields don’t turn off, they were already off.

But this does not mean that having more cap isn't good even at the expense of less efficient weapons. you can even figure a pretty reasonable breakeven for the weapons. (its like 6 seconds for DPS equivalent HN's vs mark IX, which is about 3400 shield damage not counting the extra time the mark IX gets to make use of your full dissipation which is pretty significant)

At the end of the day i have found that mark IX's are pretty good. I used to be in the boat you were but found that they performed a lot better than i was giving them credit for. Like, ships where i wanted kinetic damage just did better with Mark IX's than they did with HN. The extra range on HN's(140 to 160) make them really valuable even at slightly less efficiency. They even do decent damage vs things that put their shields down and have high armor. If you make them better accuracy/recoil they will be obscene even at higher OP. As an example there is a mod with an 'estus Assault Gun, which is less flux efficient compared to a Mark IX and has HAG fire profile. And its just simply the best kinetic damage weapon in the game to a ludicrous degree

You could maybe reduce its flux use if you wanted to give it a buff but its still a very competent weapon for ships that are slot limited (and for ships that really need to eek out every last ounce of range).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 17, 2020, 07:10:41 PM
I think maybe ECM should apply straight to the enemy fleet instead of competing with their ECM. This would make ECM less of a battle-winner, but it would still shift how battles work by making long range builds relatively weaker than normal.

Hmm - that'd just effectively reduce range by 20% across the board for everything, no? At least in many, many cases.

Wouldn't it usually be 0% vs. 10% or 10% vs. 20%, or did you remove the cap increases? Even 20% reduction across the board sometimes could be interesting in its own way, I think.

RE HBI on Onslaught: I don't think it addresses the ship's core issues with flux usage and armor vs. shields.

Well, you're right about that - but those are ship features rather than ship issues! Which isn't to say that it's a perfectly balanced ship or whatever, but rather than anything that's done to balance it ought to work around these, imo.

I'm not against HBI, but I put mediums on the Onslaught's side larges mainly to save flux, not OP. If the movement AI considered turning to face its best PD towards incoming missiles instead of preemptively throwing up shields, overfluxing with more larges might be more viable.


Mark IX is fine in my book, btw. It is really effective against destroyers and up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 17, 2020, 07:13:22 PM
Please let us have Size-7 colonies through cryosleeper!
And +1 industry when a colony reaches size-7
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 07:40:18 PM
Also, to add onto the version naming talk:
If you're using "0.9.1" and "0.9" for example, as far as I recall it makes sense to show it as "0.9.0" instead of just "0.9"
Like, if you're showing iterative hotfix versions then that position should be kept as 0 if none have occured yet..

maybe im just dumb tho

Makes sense! But since it hasn't been that way, I'll just stick to how I've been doing it :)


Wouldn't it usually be 0% vs. 10% or 10% vs. 20%, or did you remove the cap increases? Even 20% reduction across the board sometimes could be interesting in its own way, I think.

Ah, right - it's now 20% max, and the max isn't affected by skill. But since Gunnery Implants gives an EW bonus when used on smaller ships, you'd get some EW in many battles. Sorry about not providing enough context :)

I'm not against HBI, but I put mediums on the Onslaught's side larges mainly to save flux, not OP. If the movement AI considered turning to face its best PD towards incoming missiles instead of preemptively throwing up shields, overfluxing with more larges might be more viable.

Not sure an Onslaught could really pull that off, turn-rate wise. But yeah, I see what you're saying. Still, I think this opens up more variety, especially if those arcs don't try to fire front and so aren't as much of a flux drain.


Please let us have Size-7 colonies through cryosleeper!
And +1 industry when a colony reaches size-7

Well, if you really want 'em, you can edit settings.json! But vanilla-wise, I don't think it makes sense. (Edit: you'd feel forced to only colonize near the cryosleeper; that'd be really bad for the game. Unless you could move the sleeper around etc, but that's a whole other separate thing.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 17, 2020, 08:29:19 PM
Do some industries have multiple options for story-point based specialization/improvement? Mutual exclusivity between options?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: passwalker on October 17, 2020, 08:30:40 PM
Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.
Less top-heavy (i.e. fewer large ships), more even mix of ship classes on the high end
    Use "mercenary" type officers to augment the fleets and go above the 10 officer limit
that doesn't seem to address the problem, it only affects composition of a fleet, not the size of it
or am i not understanding something
we have that already, in "maxShipsInAIFleet", but if i set it lower it will not make fleets smaller in the late game, it will only make them to consist of the largest ships possible
i'm talking about hard restrictions of how much fleet points a fleet can possibly have, overriding any other factors(vanilla or modded).
because late game battles can take several hours real time to fight, when combined fleet points of ai fleet exceed maximum possible battle size multiple times over, it's just reinforcements after reinforcements after reinforcements over and over again, all at 10fps at best.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on October 17, 2020, 08:32:17 PM
It is already strange that colonies can summon thousands or millions of new people out of thin air within a timespan of just a few cycles. Frankly, I get where you're coming from re: larger colonies being fun. We all want to rule the galaxy. But it won't play well with the timescale.

Also, give Conquest some love plz. Now that Onslaught stole its hullmod, it's even more of an odd-man-out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 17, 2020, 08:51:35 PM
Do some industries have multiple options for story-point based specialization/improvement? Mutual exclusivity between options?

Search the OP for "make improvements"!

Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.
Less top-heavy (i.e. fewer large ships), more even mix of ship classes on the high end
    Use "mercenary" type officers to augment the fleets and go above the 10 officer limit
that doesn't seem to address the problem, it only affects composition of a fleet, not the size of it
or am i not understanding something
we have that already, in "maxShipsInAIFleet", but if i set it lower it will not make fleets smaller in the late game, it will only make them to consist of the largest ships possible
i'm talking about hard restrictions of how much fleet points a fleet can possibly have, overriding any other factors(vanilla or modded).
because late game battles can take several hours real time to fight, when combined fleet points of ai fleet exceed maximum possible battle size multiple times over, it's just reinforcements after reinforcements after reinforcements over and over again, all at 10fps at best.

I think you may be missing the "less top heavy" part? The max number of ships is the same but a top-end fleet will have a few capitals (along with smaller ships filling it in) and a bunch of officers rather than a *ton* of capitals and a few token something-elses.

This also reminds me - I may have toned down the number of fleets in the high-end expeditions, but it didn't make it into the patch notes. I seem to remember making some changes with these; will have to have another look.

(Edit: just to be clear, we're very much on the same page as far as what you're describing not being good.)

Also, give Conquest some love plz. Now that Onslaught stole its hullmod, it's even more of an odd-man-out.

Hmm, I think the Conquest is already pretty great, so I'm not so sure about that!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2020, 09:00:49 PM
Re: Mark IX
If I do not need 900 range, I prefer Heavy Needler over Mark IX because of efficiency.  Heavy Ballistics Integration is the only reason why I put Mark IX on Conquest.  Otherwise, I would use more Heavy Needlers.  In case of Onslaught, I usually put Heavy Needler in the center heavy because of accuracy and efficiency.  (On the other hand, four heavy needlers firing at once is a huge flux spike that can self-destructive.)

I would not mind Mark IX being a bit more efficient.  (Aside from that, Mark IX gets the job done.)  Arbalest is efficient for a cheap 8 OP weapon.  Unlike small and medium in which autocannons have superior competitors, there is no heavy kinetic upgrade better than Mark IX.  Gauss is too slow and inefficient, and Storm Needler has terrible range (at 700) for its size.  If I need a simple medium range kinetic in a heavy mount, either Heavy Needler (medium weapon!) or Mark IX are it.

Speaking of Arbalest, with 7 OP light needlers, I might shove them in medium mounts instead of Arbalests.  (I mount railguns instead of arbalests sometimes.)  1 more OP to spend may be worth more than steady anti-shield suppression.

It is already strange that colonies can summon thousands or millions of new people out of thin air within a timespan of just a few cycles. Frankly, I get where you're coming from re: larger colonies being fun. We all want to rule the galaxy. But it won't play well with the timescale.
It would be nice if player could start a colony at size 4 (instead of 3) if player somehow brought more than 10k crew with him.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 17, 2020, 10:00:04 PM
Hmm? The patch notes talk about AI fleet composition changes.
Less top-heavy (i.e. fewer large ships), more even mix of ship classes on the high end
    Use "mercenary" type officers to augment the fleets and go above the 10 officer limit
that doesn't seem to address the problem, it only affects composition of a fleet, not the size of it
or am i not understanding something
we have that already, in "maxShipsInAIFleet", but if i set it lower it will not make fleets smaller in the late game, it will only make them to consist of the largest ships possible
i'm talking about hard restrictions of how much fleet points a fleet can possibly have, overriding any other factors(vanilla or modded).
because late game battles can take several hours real time to fight, when combined fleet points of ai fleet exceed maximum possible battle size multiple times over, it's just reinforcements after reinforcements after reinforcements over and over again, all at 10fps at best.

I think you may be missing the "less top heavy" part? The max number of ships is the same but a top-end fleet will have a few capitals (along with smaller ships filling it in) and a bunch of officers rather than a *ton* of capitals and a few token something-elses.

This also reminds me - I may have toned down the number of fleets in the high-end expeditions, but it didn't make it into the patch notes. I seem to remember making some changes with these; will have to have another look.

(Edit: just to be clear, we're very much on the same page as far as what you're describing not being good.)
I think the only vanilla fleets that are clearly oversized are some of the pirate distress call ambushes* (like three fleets of 8-10 capitals + support each) and possibly pirate raids from max level bases. (EDIT: also level >10 person bounties)
 
If mods are making fleets with excessive FP, that's either necessary for the desired function or an issue with the mod.

*possibly due to the fleets being spawned with the fleet size multiplier of the nearest pirate market?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on October 17, 2020, 10:35:20 PM
Mhh, is there even enough difference left between "moving slowly" and "going dark" to warrant them being separate options? Seems like turning off your transponder and moving slowly archives almost the same thing as going dark. Minus the 50% detection range reduction, which could just be added to moving slowly.

I just had the though that it might be cool if only "go dark" would extend the phase field of phase ships around the entire fleet (and more effectively), but it would cost them CR at a slow rate. So without phase ships in your fleet there would be no "go dark" option and "move slowly" would take over that function.

"Go dark" is a bit easier to use for a longer period, just usability-wise, and it auto-toggles the transponder off, so that's more convenient, too. "Move slowly" is more of a thing you do intermittently. Still, I get what you're saying, hmm.


Could "Move slowly" be an automated additional stance on top of normal move/sustained burn? When you enter asteroid field/etc it activates, but otherwise you move at speed of other stance.
I mean there seems to be absolutely no reason to use "Move slowly" in clear space, and constantly triggering it on/off can get very annoying (to the point that I'm likely ignore it and just eat asteroid hits if penalty is not too bad).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 18, 2020, 02:35:17 AM
Anyone here believe that medium ballistic weapons which cost 8 OP or less need to be readjusted now that railguns are now 8 OP? Do their OP costs and performance need to be increased? Or it is fine for medium weapons to cost less OP than a light weapon?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 18, 2020, 02:58:50 AM
I don't see why would that be a problem. Even before we had Needlers at 9 OP while Heavy mortar costs 7. That way you have some useful cheap options without having to downsize mounts. I think it's fine for the game to have budget and super elite options for each mount size. Otherwise you'd just be seeing Needlera in almost every medium slot.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on October 18, 2020, 02:59:27 AM
Quote
Nanoforges: add Pollution when installed; becomes permanent after three months
Is this going to be permanent as in absolutely final, or will you be able to 'upgrade' to a better version of the same thing later?

Hmm, I don't quite understand the question. The Pollution condition will be permanent and nothing removes it, if that's what you're asking.

Wait. Is this the pollution being being made permanent?
I read that as the nanoforge getting 'locked' in place and thus becoming permanent, and was slightly concerned that this might introduce 'gamey' behaviour regarding never using 'inferior' versions of things.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 18, 2020, 03:07:48 AM
Whew! That's some nice patch notes you got there!

Obvious excitement about the new story and ship/weapon content aside, I am really looking forwards to

1)Improved AI behaviour. Having the AI handle itself better and better every patch would provide us with what I think is a much needed difficulty and quality of life bump at the same time. I am looking forward to my aggressive ships to boost into the enemy with even less abandon also  ;)

2)The much needed carrier spam has finally arrived. Not only we got notoriously overperforming carriers like Drover and Astral dialed back but we also have reinforced deck crew Rebalanced and the most cancer inducing fighter in the game actually cut down to serve it's intended role. Bravo!

I've only got back to being active on the forum for a month but I could easily spot changes done out of suggestions and discussions we had. The thread about the Gladius resulting in buffing both Gladius and Warthog, the thread about armor resulting in the Heavy Armor modspec being buffed and I could go on! I am so glad you guys value direct feedback from a loving community as much as you do. I am probably buying Starsector to some of my friends this Christmas!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 18, 2020, 03:33:02 AM
...

Speaking of expeditions, "interesting event that you interact with" just sounds like "annually mandatory babysitting session" to me, honestly. And like it'd limit playstyle because if I have to intervene with my own fleet I'd pretty much be on a timer to amass a final endgame doomfleet whenever I put my first colony down.
...

I've read things like this a lot while lurking in these forums and i still don't understand it. In some of my playthroughs i've started colonizing as soon as half a year into the game and even then i've never found expeditions to be a problem. When fighting them myself i've usually found them to be underwhelming and by the time they might get bigger the colonies tend to be defended enough that they don't even need me.
Maybe they become a problem once they send multiple "very strong" fleets but in my experience they're not in any kind of a hurry to do that. Maybe they will eventually if you keep playing but by that time you'd have all the ships you want in your own fleet anyway.

Now the first pirate fleet, that appears to be scripted to be sent within a few months and tends to be a lot bigger than the ones that spawn from bases afterwards, *that* can be a challenge if you rushed for colonies.
In the current version of the game they're indeed not a problem (aside from making the other factions seem incredibly selfish, suicidal and petty, maybe). But with the upcoming changes I'm afraid of them becoming a problem, if not directly than because of another change indirectly resulting in them being harder to deal with. For example, if the profitability nerfs make it so you just cannot afford to build up colony defences in time they might end up becoming an issue. Of course that specific example I don't think will be an issue, since it should be easily countered by the increased profitability of weapon sales and available work through contacts. But something else unexpected might crop up.

In my experience the scripted pirate base that always spawns and very quickly sends a fleet your way is always a mere level 1 base, even a fledging colony can handle a -1/-10% raid...though they'll start at level 2 in the upcoming patch, and a -2/-30% base will send 2.5× bigger fleets, so...yeah. Anyway the issue isn't -1/-10% bases, it's the existing -3/-50% bases randomly deciding to raid your colonies long before you're ready to handle the fleets they send.

Speaking of expeditions, "interesting event that you interact with" just sounds like "annually mandatory babysitting session" to me, honestly.

Eh, that really depends. I mean, I get where you're coming from, but e.g. (numbers totally made up) if an expedition comes once every ten cycles and is a huge problem you have to scramble to deal with, then that's going to feel differently than a drop-feed of weaker stuff every couple of months. So it's definitely a thing where how much of it there is and what it does/what kind of response it requires changes it qualitatively.

Basically, I'm worried about colonies being overly nerfed in terms of them becoming a permanent ball and chain for the player

Like I said, fair concern, but per my previous response, I think it'll be ok. And if not, it'll need tuning!

(I don't think the item restrictions are *that* punishing, that is, you should be able to find a planet that you can use any given item on without too much trouble. An optimal one is another question, but that's already the case...)
True. And honestly the "fewer, but more problematic" angle would probably work better in a "the universe actually makes sense" sort of way, because honestly I'm not sure why the various factions repeatedly send these massive doomfleets to die against the vastly superior defence fleets and (Alpha Cored) star fortresses that they died on the last many times they tried. Especially instead of protecting their own colonies against the many pirates that raid them into decivilizing. To name one particularly egregious example, in one save I've got...four or five size 10 colonies (good system Cryosleeper ;D) each with an Alpha Core admin, Alpha Core star fortress, Alpha Core military base (high command in one case), Alpha Core heavy batteries and Alpha Core Red Planet Device. You'd think the factions would learn that sending two fleets is not going to stop me from cutting into their ore export, and yet...

If the option remains to bribe off these fleets, either with money or with favors, that'll also help. Just in case I get caught unprepared (I...might have a bad tendency to cut the defence budget in favor of more growth sometimes ::)) or really don't want to bother right that moment. Especially now that building up faction relationships should be easier with contacts (before like 99% of all mission only boosted the Independents) it'll be easier to grease the wheels with something other than a giant pile of...recycled pirate fleets whenever a system bounty pops up.

And yes, however the situation will end up actually playing out ingame it'll probably need and get tuned afterwards. Given the number of changes and especially completely new/overhauled features I'm fully expecting a few patches to fix the inevitable mistakes. And they'll be great fun to try out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 18, 2020, 05:42:15 AM
Jumping into the Mark IX (and Onslaught) side discussion: Mark IX Autocannon is in a good place, IMO.

Spoiler
Basically it is a large size Heavy Autocannon. What they have in common:
  • Both shoots a volley of projectiles with no charge-up delay and with the same projectile speed.
  • Both provide sustained kinetic pressure, whereas Heavy Needler provides strong kinetic bursts.
  • Per-projectile damage is mid-range compared to other kinetic weapons of the same size, neither high nor low. This tends to not only damage shields, but also slowly strip armors and hulls.

What is different:
  • Mark IX Autocannon has faster turn rate: 10 vs 7. It does matter on Onslaught.
  • Mark IX Autocannon shoots 4 projectiles per volley vs 3 for HAC.
  • Mark IX Autocannon has much higher per-projectile damage: 200 vs 100, so higher armor stripping power and longer shield overload duration.
  • So the per-volley shield damage is 1600 vs 600 (if all projectiles hit).
  • Mark IX Autocannon has longer range: with ITU on capitals, that’s 1440 vs 1280, 160 more, so Mark IX will always fire at least one volley before HAC fires its first volley.
  • Mark IX Autocannon has better accuracy and it shoots its 4 projectiles in a tighter time frame, so better effective DPS against small/moving targets.
  • Mark IX Autocannon has a longer overall volley re-fire delay: 2.3 seconds vs 1.4, which is a drawback (but not as bad as with Heavy Needlers). I still consider this to be sustained fire, especially when shot at long range.
  • Mark IX Autocannon delivers 348 DPS vs 214 (if all projectiles hit).
  • Mark IX Autocannon has a 230 per-projectile flux cost, HAC has 100.

Considering Mark IX is 18 OP and HAC is 10, I would say we got a decent deal. You could reduce the per-projectile flux cost to, say, 220, but I suspect it would not really matter in the end. Hmm, and/or maybe raise the per-projectile flux cost of HAC to 110. :)

On Onslaught, my typical load-out has: 1 Mark IX Autocannon in the center and 2 Heavy Autocannons in the front side. This never disappoints. Both gun types work well-enough together. This way the Mark IX provides superior kinetic front range (which I consider important on this ship) and good overall kinetic effectiveness.

On Conquest, my typical load-out has: Mark IX Autocannons in the front large ballistic slots on both sides, and Heavy Autocannons in the next medium ballistic slots on both sides.

On Dominator I often use either a pair of Mark IX Autocannons in large slots together with medium HE guns in the medium slots, or a pair of Heavy Autocannons in the medium slots together with large HE guns in the large slots. Sometimes I mix 1 Mark IX Autocannon with another large gun, and a least 1 Heavy Autocannon.

Same general approach on Legion as on Dominator.

(notice I did not mention using Heavy Needler on any of those ships)

My points being,
  • overall Mark IX and HAC serve the same purpose in a similar way
  • Mark IX has clear performance advantages compared to HAC, and some downsides too
  • needlers are entirely different beasts.
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 18, 2020, 06:37:51 AM
I don't get how you not using Needlers on those shipa proves anything. You also said you don't use flaks on Dominator medium slots so I'm taking it all with a grain of salt. And yes obviously Mark IX is stronger than the HAC, if it wasn't, something would be very wrong. Now you listed all of the differences but forgot the most important one, losing efficiency (aren't large weapons supposed to be efficient anyways?). So you get a choice like this: Use a weapon with better sustained damage and better shot/dmg and worse everything, or the opposite which is cheaper than the first.

Again, it's not a bad weapon, but it shouldn't have 1.15 efficiency for its performance.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 18, 2020, 06:47:44 AM
...
In my experience the scripted pirate base that always spawns and very quickly sends a fleet your way is always a mere level 1 base, even a fledging colony can handle a -1/-10% raid...though they'll start at level 2 in the upcoming patch, and a -2/-30% base will send 2.5× bigger fleets, so...yeah. Anyway the issue isn't -1/-10% bases, it's the existing -3/-50% bases randomly deciding to raid your colonies long before you're ready to handle the fleets they send.
...

The base is always a small one indeed, at least afaik. But the first fleet it spawns/that gets spawned along with it seems to be independant from that base and/or the normal rules.
I haven't done *that* many playthroughs, but in my experience that scripted fleet usually comes with multiple capitals (5+ iirc) and decent support fleets, while the "normal" fleets for a freshly spawned base like that have maybe 2 or 3 plus weak support fleets.
If you rushed hard enough that you only have a handful of combat ships with maybe 1 or 2 cruisers at the higher end that can still pose a real problem. Especially if the fleets arrive a few weeks *before* you're able to complete an orbital station, as it tends to do more often than not.

Luckily it's not the end of the world even if you get raided though. For that reason i don't think it's a problem if a -3 base randomly switches to your system either, since that's pretty rare in the first place.

As for the original point, about expedition forces and them maybe becoming stronger (relative to the colonies). Could be that that happens, and could be that they become so strong it's too much, but i don't really fear it from reading the various changes. So i guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. (Also remember that playtesting doesn't even seem to have started yet)


...
FWIW, what you're describing sounds exactly right to me. If I had to guess, I think there's a tendency to gloss over this interval - which probably makes up for most of the playthroughs for many players - because it's not a "stable end state", if that makes sense. Which, I mean, fair enough on that count, but also a grain of salt.
...

Ah yeah makes sense. I think i've only done one playthrough where i played for 15 years or so, and probably colonized pretty late on that one, because there isn't enough "endgame" to keep things interesting/challenging once you start running multiple capitals (plus fully fleshed out support fleet/maxed officers/etc) imo. So might be that i've only dipped my toe in that "stable end state", or never even seen it yet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 07:13:25 AM
Again, it's not a bad weapon, but it shouldn't have 1.15 efficiency for its performance.
If there will not be an elite medium-range heavy kinetic, I agree.  With small, we have light needler and railgun.  With medium, we have heavy needler.  With heavy, we have... nothing.  Closest Mark IX has to a useful medium-range alternative is downsizing to Heavy Needler.

If there will be a new heavy kinetic, or Storm Needler upgraded to 800+ range (why is Heavy Needler the only needler with 800 range), then Mark IX being mildly inefficient may not be a problem.

Quote
If the option remains to bribe off these fleets, either with money or with favors, that'll also help. Just in case I get caught unprepared (I...might have a bad tendency to cut the defence budget in favor of more growth sometimes ::)) or really don't want to bother right that moment. Especially now that building up faction relationships should be easier with contacts (before like 99% of all mission only boosted the Independents) it'll be easier to grease the wheels with something other than a giant pile of...recycled pirate fleets whenever a system bounty pops up.
Patch notes says story points will be required for bribes (that I like to call extortion payments).  Urge to kill all of the core worlds rising!

It is stupid that the "massive doomfleets" sent to invade your systems are bigger or stronger than their system defense fleets.  It should not be easier to destroy Chicomoztoc (or other major faction's capital world) and the rest of their worlds than it is to defend my colonies.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ArkAngel on October 18, 2020, 07:41:25 AM
It is stupid that the "massive doomfleets" sent to invade your systems are bigger or stronger than their system defense fleets.  It should not be easier to destroy Chicomoztoc (or other major faction's capital world) and the rest of their worlds than it is to defend my colonies.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it. For the doomfleet task forces, they take a bit to prepare and bring together ships from where they need to across the faction. Where as, ships defending there territory are just garrisons. I can’t help but think of the Mayasura story mission.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 07:58:53 AM
It is stupid that the "massive doomfleets" sent to invade your systems are bigger or stronger than their system defense fleets.  It should not be easier to destroy Chicomoztoc (or other major faction's capital world) and the rest of their worlds than it is to defend my colonies.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it. For the doomfleet task forces, they take a bit to prepare and bring together ships from where they need to across the faction. Where as, ships defending there territory are just garrisons. I can’t help but think of the Mayasura story mission.
It may make sense, but it is unsatisfying for gameplay.  My first priority is to amass enough military strength so that my colonies can take care of themselves and my fleet can be free to do fun things like explore and do quests (or raid enemies like Ordos) instead of being forced to babysit my colonies for an extended period of time.  By the time my system defenses are strong enough, killing all of the core worlds becomes trivial.

Some of those doomfleets ought to be sent to pirate bases and their mortal enemies too.

The strongest named bounties too are overpowered compared to core worlds' system defenses.  If the player's fleet can smash the strongest bounties, that same fleet can sneeze on the core worlds and they all burn down.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TheDTYP on October 18, 2020, 08:05:28 AM
The lore junkie in me is positively losing his mind right now...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 18, 2020, 08:35:29 AM
As for the planet size, I think it's unfortunate that your colonies will never be as large as the core world ones. Probably doesn't matter for gameplay, but it feels bad.

That's quite subjective, so: fair enough! I just don't think it makes in-fiction sense.

And for that reason, I, for one, wholeheartedly approve of the switch to smaller player colonies. It never made sense to me that you could reach population sizes within a few cycles that took other factions over 200 cycles to accomplish. If it were me, colonies would also start smaller and slower - not with a spaceport and "population&infrastructure" but with landing pads and homesteads.


Mining stations have a chance to drop a very large quantity of low-value commodities

Speaking of, are there any plans to make mining stations (or other non colony-bound stations) available to the player? There is no real reason I can see why they apparently were a common thing in the Sector before the fall and now fell completely out of use. (Giving some (hint of a ) reason in game would also be fine.)


Some of those doomfleets ought to be sent to pirate bases and their mortal enemies too.

That would do a lot for the believability of the world! And it would be a great opportunity for the player to experience a grand battle early on. Maybe even by joining as a mercenary.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 18, 2020, 09:06:39 AM
Patch notes says story points will be required for bribes (that I like to call extortion payments).  Urge to kill all of the core worlds rising!
Eh...hopefully once colonies are set up and matured they'll be able to take care of themselves, but if not that's definitely going to result in me hoarding story points at that point in the game. I can't rely on a steady stream of xp to refresh them if I'm out exploring and happen to hit a dry streak, so I either have them on hand or I risk getting called off to go defend the homestead. And with five factions able to send expeditions, two factions determined to burn every (player owned) Free Port down to the ground and one faction needlessly concerned about AI core use...that's a lot of potential trouble that can crop up when I could be flying around in the other side of the sector.

Not sure why bribing punitive expeditions should cost a storypoint anyway. Hegemony AI inspections, absolutely, the ability to just pay them off really flies in the face of an interstellar corporation being unable to avoid multiple wars over them. Punitive expeditions, to me, always seemed like a bunch of private interests within a faction getting uppity over their bottom line getting cut, so I don't see what would be so hard about paying them off. Especially when the last ten times they tried they just died horribly to my system defence fleets and Alpha Cored star fortress.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tempest on October 18, 2020, 09:07:06 AM
Number of recoverable ships shown not limited by maximum number of ships in player fleet
Yay!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 18, 2020, 10:37:24 AM
(followup on the Mark IX discussion)

Now you listed all of the differences but forgot the most important one, losing efficiency

Thanks for reviewing and sharing your opinion. Below is a longish answer about "efficiency", under spoiler in an attempt to keep things tidy.
Spoiler
Well, you should probably first define "efficiency". Efficiency at damaging target's shield is meaningful, because flux used on the shooting end also builds flux on the receiving end. Efficiency at damaging armor/hull? Meaning comparing flux used to destroy X amount of armor/hull. Now this is getting quite abstract, though sure, you want the highest damage for the lowest flux cost. Right?

How you do achieve the highest damage at the lowest flux cost can not be extracted from a simple ratio built from (theoretical) damage and flux stats. That's why I highlighted some important stuff like turn rate, damage per volley, range, accuracy, volley time frame, and volley refire delay differences.

About (theoretical) damage and flux stats, let me show you, here:
Mark IX Autocannon has much higher per-projectile damage: 200 vs 100, so higher armor stripping power and longer shield overload duration.
Mark IX Autocannon has a 230 per-projectile flux cost, HAC has 100.

We have 200/230 for Mark IX vs 100/100 for HAC. Is it important? Yes. The most important? I don't think so. One should not ignore the other characteristics. Honestly I think this "theoretical weapon efficiency" is often overrated. And overall ship stats and actual battle situations will often (always?) make a bigger difference than single-weapon "theoretical efficiency".

(aren't large weapons supposed to be efficient anyways?).

Uhh. Is this written somewhere? I mean, sure, all 3 large HE guns are "efficient" (to various degrees, and one should be careful which definition of "efficient" he uses there). Should that apply to kinetic gun? I personally do not expect that.  :)

What I would expect: the energy cost of pumping out heavier and faster projectiles is higher than the cost for lighter and slower projectiles. And I would also expect volley / burst of projectiles to affect the energy cost one way or the other depending on design.

Again, it's not a bad weapon, but it shouldn't have 1.15 efficiency for its performance.

1.15? Ok, I see you use flux/damage. Let's use damage/flux,

Gauss has 0.58
HVD has 0.79
( Mjolnir has 0.8 )
Mark IX has 0.87
( Heavy Mauler has 0.89 )
HAC has 1
( Hellbore has 1 )
( Hephaestus has 1 )
( Railgun has 1.11 )
Storm Needler has 1.15
Arbalest has 1.25
( Light Needler has 1.25 )
Heavy Needler has 1.25
( Devastator has 2 )
HMG has 2.67

What does this magic number tells you about gun intended use and actual performance? Not much. In fact, if you are interested in theoretical efficiency at dealing with target's shield, you could use (damage*2)/flux for kinetic guns. But even then, it would be far from telling the whole story.

And putting side by side kinetic / HE /energy guns as I've done above is not a good idea because one can't compare the ratio from, say, a Mark IX and an Hephaestus. Doing so would be meaningless without a narrowed scope. Using a narrowed scope such as theoretical efficiency at dealing with target's shield, you may use (damage*2)/flux for Mark IX and damage/(flux*2) for Hephaestus. But... was the effort really necessary?

(don't get me started about comparing Hephaestus and Hellbore performance through such "efficiency" ratios)
[close]
Which brings me to this humble conclusion: generally speaking, theoretical weapon efficiency is not that interesting.

If there will be a new heavy kinetic, or Storm Needler upgraded to 800+ range (why is Heavy Needler the only needler with 800 range), then Mark IX being mildly inefficient may not be a problem.

I would argue having currently 800 range on Heavy Needler is a problem given the overall package. 700-range for 14 OP would be a better / more natural fit, IMO. Needlers bringing kinetic hell at 700 range is already quite effective, and requires the ship to be committed. It seems to be an adequate risk/reward compromise.

800 range on the medium version just looks like an oversight from the last update (when Light Needlers got down to 700 from 800). Otherwise IMO the per-projectile flux cost should be tweaked to balance the higher range if it stays at 800.
Spoiler
For example using 45 instead of 40, which would bring down "efficiency" to 1.11.
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 18, 2020, 11:23:49 AM
I find damage/flux to be more natural, but flux/damage is how its listed in game so I've gotten used to it. Mk IX discussion:
Spoiler
For damaging shields, a HN gives 43.75% more damage for the same flux invested, assuming all Mk IX and all HN shots hit*. There is a DPS penalty (250 vs 350), but that can be overcome by using more mounts. In terms of lowering enemy shields while not driving up the firing ship's flux, its shockingly better.

The Mk IX's anti-hull performance once armor is down is pretty good and a real mark in its favor. In the current version unfortunately it does not work against skilled opponents because of the +150 base armor and -damage to armor from kinetics skill combo. If those skills are gone or toned down, the Mk IX gains a lot of utility in its secondary role!

*I want to collect some data on real world accuracy of Mk IX/HN/HAC etc from campaign, because the assumption of "all shots hit" is a really really bad one. I suspect that Mk IX's miss a lot of shots from my experience, but I don't want to include that in a numbers argument without taking data.
[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 18, 2020, 11:33:35 AM
Yea I'm also not a fan of throwing stats like crazy when you calculate on the assumption that every shot hits on an inaccurate weapon. Sure if you're fighting stations 24/7. And I'd also be super interested to see what percentage of shots usually hits.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2020, 11:40:50 AM
Now you listed all of the differences but forgot the most important one, losing efficiency

No I talked about efficiency. The mark IX isn’t an inefficient weapon. It isn’t as efficient as some other weapons. But it’s still efficient.

EG. Mark IX Vs Shield is 1.74 dmg/flux(.575 f/d). HN is 2.5(.4 f/d) Vs 50 armor (minimum armor for 1k armor ship) a mark IX is .58 dmg/flux(1.72 f/d) and a HN is .41 dmg/flux(2.43 f/d). Vs 200 armor it’s .29 dmg/flux (3.44 f/d) for the mark IX Vs .1875(5.4 f/d). Which makes the mark IX much more efficient Vs hull. Almost 60% more efficient Vs skilled hull!

If I have infinite slots and OP then the HN wins out because I don’t care about it’s hull/armor performance.  But if I do not have infinite slots and OP then the mark IX stops doing minimum armor dmg at 566 armor while the HN stops doing minimum armor damage at 141.

And the Mark IX still shoots earlier and still does more DPS/OP. And these things matter just as much, or more, than it’s shield efficiency numbers because the mark IX is still efficient enough where you want to trade all your flux as fast as you can into their shields. And once you do that the dmg/armor and dmg/hull matters a lot more.

 Think of it like a more efficient HVD rather than an HA. The HVD is a great medium kinetic but it only does 1.06 dmg/OP at .78 dmg/flux while the Mark IX is doing 19.3 DPS/OP at .85 dmg/flux.

Re: dominator. I usually leave the smalls for PD because IPDAI Vulcans are sufficient. But if I was making a non-SO dominator and had flack in the mediums I sure as heck would run mark IX in the larges.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2020, 11:44:20 AM
Wait. Is this the pollution being being made permanent?
I read that as the nanoforge getting 'locked' in place and thus becoming permanent, and was slightly concerned that this might introduce 'gamey' behaviour regarding never using 'inferior' versions of things.

Yeah, it's pollution being permanent! Now this makes sense. And, yeah, totally agree re: incentivizing swapping etc being bad. (In particular, swapping a nanoforge out temporarily won't help avoid pollution, since it's based on the total time spent with one, not consecutive days.)

1)Improved AI behaviour. Having the AI handle itself better and better every patch would provide us with what I think is a much needed difficulty and quality of life bump at the same time. I am looking forward to my aggressive ships to boost into the enemy with even less abandon also  ;)

I'm pretty excited about the AI improvements myself, if we're being honest :) I think it also finally puts a nail into some of the most annoying things it could do (re: having to wait out phase ships, and chasing down the last remnant frigate or two); that always makes me cringe when I see it happen on stream or in a video.


I've only got back to being active on the forum for a month but I could easily spot changes done out of suggestions and discussions we had. The thread about the Gladius resulting in buffing both Gladius and Warthog, the thread about armor resulting in the Heavy Armor modspec being buffed and I could go on! I am so glad you guys value direct feedback from a loving community as much as you do. I am probably buying Starsector to some of my friends this Christmas!

Thank you! I'm grateful for all the feedback and the thought and time that goes into it. (I mean, still gotta make my own judgment calls about what to act on and not, what there's time for, which things fit together well and so on, but the feedback is invaluable nonetheless.)

To name one particularly egregious example, in one save I've got...four or five size 10 colonies (good system Cryosleeper ;D) each with an Alpha Core admin, Alpha Core star fortress, Alpha Core military base (high command in one case), Alpha Core heavy batteries and Alpha Core Red Planet Device. You'd think the factions would learn that sending two fleets is not going to stop me from cutting into their ore export, and yet...

To look at it from another perspective, this is part of the problem with super large colonies etc - really, everything kind of breaks down when you get to that point, both in-fiction logic and mechanics-wise.

And yes, however the situation will end up actually playing out ingame it'll probably need and get tuned afterwards. Given the number of changes and especially completely new/overhauled features I'm fully expecting a few patches to fix the inevitable mistakes. And they'll be great fun to try out.

Indeed, I'd imagine so. And, thank you!


Re: Mark IX - right now, I'm thinking about making it 1.0 flux efficient. I don't think accuracy is a good thing to buff since with its relatively high per-shot damage, it'd be too punishing vs frigates.


Ah yeah makes sense. I think i've only done one playthrough where i played for 15 years or so, and probably colonized pretty late on that one, because there isn't enough "endgame" to keep things interesting/challenging once you start running multiple capitals (plus fully fleshed out support fleet/maxed officers/etc) imo. So might be that i've only dipped my toe in that "stable end state", or never even seen it yet.

Gotcha, yeah. And very much agree on not enough being there at that point; that entire state is a rough edge that will eventually connect to the proper endgame.



The lore junkie in me is positively losing his mind right now...

You've seen David's tweet about having written a novel's worth of text for this update, yeah? And, I have to say - with as much objectivity as I can muster - his writing is *so good*.


If it were me, colonies would also start smaller and slower - not with a spaceport and "population&infrastructure" but with landing pads and homesteads.

Hmm, you know, I rather like that concept. Needs a lot of details etc, bu just starting out as a "size 2" colony or something (maybe even size 1), and then needing to do... something, to make it grow beyond that - and then once at size 3, it takes off on its own. That could be quite cool.


Mining stations have a chance to drop a very large quantity of low-value commodities

Speaking of, are there any plans to make mining stations (or other non colony-bound stations) available to the player? There is no real reason I can see why they apparently were a common thing in the Sector before the fall and now fell completely out of use. (Giving some (hint of a ) reason in game would also be fine.)

Hmm. Well, it seems a bit... I don't know. I guess both a bit redundant (there's plenty of planets!) and complicated (where can you put a good mining station? how does it roll Ore conditions? how do you know ahead of time what the conditions will be? where/how can you build them? Etc). But there's also a "this would be cool" aspect to it which might make it worthwhile regardless, but... there's just a lot that would have to happen to make it work.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 18, 2020, 11:44:41 AM
Think of it like a more efficient HVD rather than an HA. The HVD is a great medium kinetic but it only does 1.06 dmg/OP at .78 dmg/flux while the Mark IX is doing 19.3 DPS/OP at .85 dmg/flux.
Right, both weapons are pinpoint accurate, right. Totally same comparison. Both weapons have average range for their size. Both weapons deal bonus EMP damage. I can go forever.

Anyways so far I haven't seen a single argument on why it's actually a good weapon, without the person ignoring one crucial thing about it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 18, 2020, 11:53:08 AM
The last time I used an Onslaught it was outfitted with triple devastator cannons and heavy needlers (or Haves, can't remember), plus a reckless officer of course. Point blank firing Devastators in the face of the enemy felt really good and is bound to be even more rewarding in the coming patch. People often misuse that Heavy mount but fail to consider the fact that it has comparable DPS and higher damage per shot than a Hephaestus without even half of the shots nailing the target.

The Mk.9 autocannon is quite good too, I just like having a devastator at the front too really. What I just don't appreciate about the onslaught is how those 4 medium missile slots are rarely fully used given how short on flux the ship is and how much OP it requires to install everything.

Imagine, the Onslaught could even become decent enough to even warrant the XIV variant to cost a bit more FP to deploy. That is something I never understood about XIV variants, why they don't cost something like 10% more the standard variant.

Heavy Armament Integration is going to solve a lot of issues that plagued the Onslaught for my entire, year and a half knowledge about it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 18, 2020, 11:57:39 AM
You've seen David's tweet about having written a novel's worth of text for this update, yeah? And, I have to say - with as much objectivity as I can muster - his writing is *so good*.
Just out of curiosity, any chance of getting a(n estimated) word count?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2020, 12:02:44 PM
Well, "novel length" is indeed an estimated word count, so yes :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2020, 12:06:01 PM
Think of it like a more efficient HVD rather than an HA. The HVD is a great medium kinetic but it only does 1.06 dmg/OP at .78 dmg/flux while the Mark IX is doing 19.3 DPS/OP at .85 dmg/flux.
Right, both weapons are pinpoint accurate, right. Totally same comparison. Both weapons have average range for their size. Both weapons deal bonus EMP damage. I can go forever.

Anyways so far I haven't seen a single argument on why it's actually a good weapon, without the person ignoring one crucial thing about it.

I mean... Vs shields it’s accuracy doesn’t matter all that much. Maybe it could use some recoil reductions. Vs armor it does but eh. It’s so much more efficient Vs armor this isn’t a huge thing.

As an example let’s take two HNs Vs two Mark IX and see who breaks Shield first. The HNs do 1000 dmg to shield and use 400 flux/second. The mark IX do 1396 dmg to shield and use 800 flux/second. This puts the HN at 1796 flux incoming and the mark IX at 1800 flux incoming. We note that this is almost identical(the mark IX does use more OP but also has longer range and so starts shooting earlier). The weapon that is almost 44% “more efficient” vs shields only beats the less efficient weapon by .2% in net flux. 1800/1796 = 1.0022! (This does matter more when shooting at better shields but not ever shield approaches close to .5 flux/dmg.)

“But the HN is super more efficient!” You say. And that only matters if we’re shooting exactly at (or under but close to) our flux dissipation... which we don’t want to be doing, we want to be shooting over our flux dissipation with both of these guns. And we want to be shooting as much over as we can in general with both of those guns

And adding slots here doesn’t change the relationship. They’re both just about as good Vs shields as each other. Despite one being a hell of a lot less efficient, simply because it does more dmg.

Edit: I am not saying that accuracy doesn’t matter. What I am saying is that the mark IX is a lot better than you give it credit for and that it really is a good gun. What it loses in accuracy it makes up for in range and raw dmg slot/OP. It is not dominated by HN.

Edit: and while I tend to fit HNs in “slot unlimited” situations it’s not because I would not prefer mark IX. It’s because I actually am slot limited because I cannot fit mark IX in the medium slots and I am using the large slots for HE.

Edit: alex if you move mark IX to 1.0 efficiency please do so by lowering flux use and not by increasing DPS. If you increase DPS the mark IX will be obscene. If you lower flux it will merely be exceptional
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zeno on October 18, 2020, 12:21:57 PM
Quote
Onslaught:
  • Reduced arc of side-facing large turrets
  • Added built-in Heavy Ballistics Integration

  • Shield Conversion - Omni: significantly reduced OP cost
  • Added Breach SRM (small) and Breach SRM Pod (medium), a new anti-armor missile
  • Medium version has high ammo, small version is extremely cheap
  • Heavy Armor: reduced maneuver penalty to 10%, moderately increased armor bonus
  • Fixed issue that would cause weapons turning towards a target to fire too early sometimes, missing the first volley

WHY CAN'T I HOLD ALL THESE ONSLAUGHT BUFFS

Quote
  • Emergency Burn no longer makes the fleet ignore terrain penalties
Does this means there's now no way to protect the fleet against CR degradation caused by terrain?  Also how does this affect fleet maneuverability in terrains that pushes/pulls the fleet (namely pulsar and black holes)?  They're extremely difficult to navigate without E-Burn cancelling out the external forces, without that it might be close to impossible to escape an event horizon without losing basically all supplies.  And if that's the case, Research Stations within event horizons will likely never get salvaged.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 12:28:20 PM
If I want to compare a heavy kinetic with HVD, I would use Gauss Cannon, not Mark IX.  Mark IX is clearly an autocannon relative for the heavy mount.  I do not use HVDs on anything that is not a dedicated sniper because it lacks damage and efficiency, not to mention that HVD fires slowly enough for AI to shield flicker against it.

Nice that Alex is considering better efficiency for Mark IX.  Low accuracy is a bit annoying, but not a deal-breaker, especially if the ship has improved accuracy from Gunnery Implants.  If Heavy Ballistics Integration is on the ship (which Onslaught will get), it is hard to say no to Mark IX (instead of getting Heavy Needlers) because 8 OP is much cheaper than 15.

As for Devastator for Onslaught, I use it mainly for anti-frigate and anti-destroyer.  It also supplements flak cannons at times.  Dual flak in the deep middle mounts (next to missile mounts) seem to take care of most missile threats at the side (even if interception is uncomfortably close), which lets Onslaught have some anti-armor in the side heavy mounts against flankers.

I avoid HAG on Onslaught because it costs too much flux per second, and Onslaught has TPCs.  HAG/Mjolnir gets used on other ships like Conquest or Legion.

Quote
Edit: alex if you move mark IX to 1.0 efficiency please do so by lowering flux use and not by increasing DPS. If you increase DPS the mark IX will be obscene. If you lower flux it will merely be exceptional
I probably would prefer less flux over more damage because low-tech ships need it!  Their dissipation is terrible.  Too many mounts (possibly with less-than-ideal coverage), not enough dissipation.

Also, more damaging mark IX would buff Conquest (which is pretty good already) because it has the flux to support flux hogs.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xeno056 on October 18, 2020, 12:35:42 PM
Oh heck yes. Pumped for the story missions, new threats and mega-structures. Still share a bit of concern about the colonial size cap, I get the limit but I don't see why 10^7 or even 10^8 is a stretch given appropriate time, nurturing, funds, Domain-Era tech and maybe lots of story points.

I LOVE the fact that we get more output boosting items and story point augmentations for industry, cannot wait to see what we have on that front. Having us require different planets for optimizing different industries is also a great idea, but how is the Diktat going to lead the industry on fuel now? ;) I think the commerce instability penalty is also steep, maybe have the Alpha AI cut it down a notch?

Orbital solar Arrays are great, but one question: Is that a tied to a planet randomly or something we can build? If it is a build able industry does it take up a slot? Is more fleshed out Terraforming coming down the line? I have so many questions. The Cryo-sleeper AoE is a great touch though.

Overall some great additions and changes across the board I feel. Can't wait to dive in to a new sector!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2020, 12:47:55 PM
If I want to compare a heavy kinetic with HVD, I would use Gauss Cannon, not Mark IX.  Mark IX is clearly an autocannon relative for the heavy mount.  I do not use HVDs on anything that is not a dedicated sniper because it lacks damage and efficiency, not to mention that HVD fires slowly enough for AI to shield flicker against it.

The point isn’t that mark IX is an HVD equivalent but that HVD are good and Mark IX is also good and clearly has advantages to one of the premier line weapons in the game. 

Also on like... your line ships that do not line break you should be using HVD. They’re fantastic. Their minimum armor dmg point is 779(and they have EMP!). Which means that they do appreciable dmg to ships of all but the largest sizes while having a 200+ range advantage over HN/HAC. They should be your go-to weapon for ships like eagle and falcon once you advance to battleships and I would bet that they’re pretty dope on Dominators too.

You don’t have to be a dedicated sniper to get a tonne of use out of HVD.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 18, 2020, 01:00:22 PM

Gotcha, yeah. And very much agree on not enough being there at that point; that entire state is a rough edge that will eventually connect to the proper endgame.


Sounds to me like you're already making large strides in that direction with this update. Even though there might not be that much in it that's technically "end game stuff" it seems there are lots of things to diversify both the current "end game" and the journey towards it.
All the contact missions. Items to hunt down for your colonies. Industry upgrades for increasing numbers of story points (which in a way is a more active replacement for colony growth beyond size 6/7, i guess. In that both that growth and upgrading your last industry might be an extravagance, but at least story points are something you actively work towards instead of just waiting for time to pass while periodically filling up the growth incentives bar). Etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 01:01:31 PM
Oh heck yes. Pumped for the story missions, new threats and mega-structures. Still share a bit of concern about the colonial size cap, I get the limit but I don't see why 10^7 or even 10^8 is a stretch given appropriate time, nurturing, funds, Domain-Era tech and maybe lots of story points.
Same here, at least for 10^7.

Idea:  Let player pick one world to be a capital world, or it could be the first one the player owns that grows to 10^7.  That one world is the player's capital world, and no others can exceed 10^6 once that first world reaches 10^7.  Maybe have a special upgrade to Population and Infrastructure that adds a palace and crowns that world as the capital.

On the other hand, having one at 10^7 while the rest stuck at 10^6 are not may not be as good as it sounds because demand for some industries may be too hard to satisfy.

Also on like... your line ships that do not line break you should be using HVD. They’re fantastic. Their minimum armor dmg point is 779(and they have EMP!). Which means that they do appreciable dmg to ships of all but the largest sizes while having a 200+ range advantage over HN/HAC. They should be your go-to weapon for ships like eagle and falcon once you advance to battleships and I would bet that they’re pretty dope on Dominators too.

You don’t have to be a dedicated sniper to get a tonne of use out of HVD.
I tried that.  It used to be great in pre-0.8a releases.  Now, if I use it against a strong enemy like Ordos, they keep advancing then outgun my ships.  After switching from HVD to needlers (and sometimes Mauler to Heavy Mortar), the tables get turned and the enemy gets outgunned more often instead.

Today, I get the most use from HVDs when I mount it on a 4x lance Paragon flagship.  With that, just about anything short of Radiants die from long-range unblockable damage.  (Radiants need a different loadout to deal with.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 18, 2020, 01:39:34 PM
I'd forgotten that the addition text is a whole novel's worth! Hype increasing!

Efficiency:
Spoiler
Quote from: Goumindong
“But the HN is super more efficient!” You say. And that only matters if we’re shooting exactly at (or under but close to) our flux dissipation... which we don’t want to be doing, we want to be shooting over our flux dissipation with both of these guns. And we want to be shooting as much over as we can in general with both of those guns

This is false. Efficiency is critical when firing over dissipation because it determines how much damage the ship can output before fluxing itself out. Onslaughts don't have infinite flux and will usually be near max flux by the time they finish off a significant enemy. Not only that, but the AI behavior of switching off weapon groups depending on the ship's flux level means that the AI will turn off weapons sooner with less efficient weapons because they have driven the flux up faster. Less efficient = less damage dealt until the weapons turn off because of the flux load.

If the ship can destroy the enemy completely before that happens, then the net flux advantage of flux dealt to enemy vs flux dealt to self is all that matters. Onslaught vs destroyers can do that, and maybe Onslaught vs poorly shielded cruisers. But that just isn't the case with any of these ships vs big enemies.

The net flux analysis (which is deeply flawed anyways, see below) of HN vs Mk IX is to me not a point in the Mk IX's favor. They have equivalent net flux change between the firing ship and the target... if the target has 1.0 shields, which is only a subset of enemies. And the Mk IX's reduce the firing ship's remaining flux pool 200 flux/s faster per gun(important!!). And the Mk IX's take 3 more OP each. And they take large slots that could be mounting Hellbores or Hephaestus. And this is assuming the Mk IX has equivalent accuracy to a HN (which again I don't have hard numbers for, but I doubt).

For completeness, here's the net flux analysis for good shields:

Examining the Mk IX vs good shields (.6). It does 350 DPS, IE 2*350*.6 = 420 flux/s to the target. It costs 400 flux to the firing ship. If we are talking about firing over dissipation, IE converting flux pools, then the gun barely helps the firing ship, giving a net flux advantage of 20/s, and large well shielded enemies may have deeper flux pools than the Onslaught/Dominator, making firing this gun near worthless (which is not true in practice, see assumptions below).

Under the same conditions, a HN does 250 DPS: 2*250*.6 = 300 flux/sec to the enemy while costing the firing ship 200 flux/second. A 100 flux/second advantage per gun, and a 1.5:1 ratio in terms of flux pool trading (which is not true in practice both because of dissipation and because of other guns firing that compete for the flux pool less efficiently).

I'll make the assumptions of this very clear: firing high over dissipation so that this is comparing the firing ship's flux pool vs the targets (which is always a false assumption, but is at least the limiting case for analysis purposes), against a .6 shielded enemy (not all enemies, but also not uncommon, including the nastiest enemies (Paragons and Radiants)), with all shots hitting (false), and having no incoming fire/armor tanking so that the firing ship does not build up flux from damage (false again).

There's a lot of false assumptions going into the above, which is readily apparent because in actual play because yes its worth it to fire Mk IX's into good shields because dissipation exists, but it both shows how important efficiency is for shield breaking when we talk about firing over max dissipation.... and also shows that this analysis is woefully simplistic to the point of being misleading.

Here is my best attempt at a not misleading piece of analysis:
For a given flux budget, whether that is capacity based OR dissipation based, HN's do 43% more shield damage, given full accuracy. That is not the complete picture because other facts matter, but it is a true statement. Does this statement matter? Not always. Its only an important statement if a ship is constrained by its flux more than it is constrained by other factors. I contend that the Dominator and Onslaught (but not the Conquest!) are constrained by their flux budgets more than any other factor, in both capacity and dissipation. If so, the above statement is important for the Dominator and Onslaught (but not for the Conquest).

The Mk IX's performance against 150 armor for skilled enemies (turns out the skill and base hull don't stack, which I didn't know until the recent testing in a thread) is a point in its favor for doing hull damage. But that makes it a weapon with a decent secondary role (hull damage) that is outcompeted in its primary role (shield damage).

[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2020, 01:53:10 PM
Edit: alex if you move mark IX to 1.0 efficiency please do so by lowering flux use and not by increasing DPS.

That's what I'm thinking, yeah. Going to have a closer look, though...


Quote
  • Emergency Burn no longer makes the fleet ignore terrain penalties
Does this means there's now no way to protect the fleet against CR degradation caused by terrain?  Also how does this affect fleet maneuverability in terrains that pushes/pulls the fleet (namely pulsar and black holes)?  They're extremely difficult to navigate without E-Burn cancelling out the external forces, without that it might be close to impossible to escape an event horizon without losing basically all supplies.  And if that's the case, Research Stations within event horizons will likely never get salvaged.

Ah, that was a bit unclear - it no longer makes the fleet ignore burn-level penalties from terrain. Black holes etc don't do that so these interactions aren't affected.

It never protected against CR degradation from terrain, btw. What it does is stop CR from regenerating while the ability is active, so supply use goes down, but the terrain CR damage still applies and has to be repaired after the ability ends.


I think the commerce instability penalty is also steep, maybe have the Alpha AI cut it down a notch?

Ah - it's less steep than you think, because - due to not providing an income bonus - having super-high stability is less important now :)

Orbital solar Arrays are great, but one question: Is that a tied to a planet randomly or something we can build? If it is a build able industry does it take up a slot? Is more fleshed out Terraforming coming down the line? I have so many questions. The Cryo-sleeper AoE is a great touch though.

You can't build them, no. They're basically like a special planetary condition with some extra visuals. Definitely not looking at terraforming; something along those lines may or may not happen, but it's not a "goal".

Overall some great additions and changes across the board I feel. Can't wait to dive in to a new sector!

Thank you!


Sounds to me like you're already making large strides in that direction with this update. Even though there might not be that much in it that's technically "end game stuff" it seems there are lots of things to diversify both the current "end game" and the journey towards it.
All the contact missions. Items to hunt down for your colonies. Industry upgrades for increasing numbers of story points (which in a way is a more active replacement for colony growth beyond size 6/7, i guess. In that both that growth and upgrading your last industry might be an extravagance, but at least story points are something you actively work towards instead of just waiting for time to pass while periodically filling up the growth incentives bar). Etc.

I'd say that's about right, yeah. Colonies are still a "tool without a task", but all the other stuff is more fleshed out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2020, 02:00:19 PM
For a given flux budget, whether that is capacity based OR dissipation based, HN's do 43% more shield damage, given full accuracy

But flux budgets are not fixed because damage tends to be incoming as well as outgoing. And doing damage faster removes the flux budget of the enemy to do damage to you faster.

It’s true that HN are more efficient and this matters for highly efficient shields. But it’s also true that the extra range matters as well. The idea that HN is just better is false.

Seriously try fitting them. They work surprisingly well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 18, 2020, 02:01:37 PM
For damaging shields, a HN gives 43.75% more damage for the same flux invested, assuming all Mk IX and all HN shots hit*. There is a DPS penalty (250 vs 350), but that can be overcome by using more mounts. In terms of lowering enemy shields while not driving up the firing ship's flux, its shockingly better.

Assuming all Mark IX and all HN shots hit shield.

I'm not sure the comparison between both guns is that relevant, but here we go:
Spoiler
Mark IX shoots one volley every 2.3 seconds, delivering 800 damage for 920 flux cost.

HN shoots one volley every 6 seconds, delivering 1500 damage for 1200 flux cost.

So a single volley from HN does much more damage than one Mark IX volley, almost double. The big burst is the reason why you use LN and HN in the first place. On the other hand it means the minimum flux cost is higher for HN at 1200 vs 920 for Mark IX.

And Mark IX has the time to shoot a second volley if so desired while HN is reloading, giving a total of 1600 damage for 1840 flux cost in a 4.6 seconds cycle.

And you know what? Mark IX has the time to shoot a third volley, giving a total of 2400 damage for 2760 flux cost.

So this is where LN/HN have a risk/reward thing. If the first volley hits shield, you win or are instantly in a good position. If the first volley hits armor or miss, it is a big waste and it might put the host ship in danger.

If firing during 138 seconds ( ;D ), the theoretical results are:

Mark IX: 48000 damage, 55200 flux cost
HN: 34500 damage, 27600 flux cost

Mark IX has exactly double flux cost of HN, but you already knew this reading the flux / seconds stats.

(looking at those figures, one should have in mind the flux available on intended host ship and also others flux-eating things)
[close]

Anyways so far I haven't seen a single argument on why it's actually a good weapon, without the person ignoring one crucial thing about it.

Agree with you, it is a good weapon.  :D  Sorry.

Edit: alex if you move mark IX to 1.0 efficiency please do so by lowering flux use and not by increasing DPS. If you increase DPS the mark IX will be obscene. If you lower flux it will merely be exceptional

Lowering the flux cost to 200 per-projectile would mean 800 per-volley instead of the current 920 per-volley. It is not that significant on large ships. Though admittedly for sustained use of 2 Mark IX on Dominator, sure 348 flux/sec per gun preferable than 400 flux/sec.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 02:11:41 PM
Ah - it's less steep than you think, because - due to not providing an income bonus - having super-high stability is less important now :)
I don't know for non-income purposes.  Stability is useful for more than that, with colony fleets and ship quality being the big one.  If stability affects fleets much, then high stability may still be (too) useful just so colony patrols can kill invaders while player is away.  Especially now that player colonies are down to 10^6.  (Hmmm, I guess if I want core worlds alive, I better sat bomb some of the bigger ones a little bit so their expeditions are not so big.)

Also, Pathers!  If stability 10 is enough to keep Pathers at bay most of the time, then maybe keeping stability at 10 while Pathers hammer away for a long time may be the way to go if I want to attempt the full sector colonization game with alpha cores.  I certainly do not want to play whack-a-mole Pathers.  Once per year is only good if I can synch all cells to one base.  Otherwise, it is whack-a-mole Pathers time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2020, 02:45:12 PM
So a single volley from HN does much more damage than one Mark IX volley, almost double. The big burst is the reason why you use LN and HN in the first place. On the other hand it means the minimum flux cost is higher for HN at 1200 vs 920 for Mark IX.

And Mark IX has the time to shoot a second volley if so desired while HN is reloading, giving a total of 1600 damage for 1840 flux cost in a 4.6 seconds cycle.

And you know what? Mark IX has the time to shoot a third volley, giving a total of 2400 damage for 2760 flux cost.

So this is where LN/HN have a risk/reward thing. If the first volley hits shield, you win or are instantly in a good position. If the first volley hits armor or miss, it is a big waste and it might put the host ship in danger.

Do note that the mark IX shoots 160 to 140 / speed differential sooner. Either because they want to back away from you or you want to back away from them. If they have a speed advantage of 20 and want close this is almost 7 seconds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 18, 2020, 03:38:51 PM
Do note that the mark IX shoots 160 to 140 / speed differential sooner.

Do you mean effective Mark IX range advantage compared to 800-range medium kinetic guns, when using ITU on capital and cruiser? If so, that's quite important, I agree. Quoting myself from earlier today:
Mark IX Autocannon has longer range: with ITU on capitals, that’s 1440 vs 1280, 160 more, so Mark IX will always fire at least one volley before HAC fires its first volley.

Either because they want to back away from you or you want to back away from them. If they have a speed advantage of 20 and want close this is almost 7 seconds.

Hmm, in this situation Mark IX has the time to fire 3 volleys while a 800-range gun would still be in standby. In battle you can't ignore that kind of difference.

Let's start a Mark IX fan club after the next release - provided changes don't break the nice package, which is very unlikely. I will celebrate by launching in battle my first three Mark IX Onslaught. ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 18, 2020, 03:52:55 PM

If it were me, colonies would also start smaller and slower - not with a spaceport and "population&infrastructure" but with landing pads and homesteads.

Hmm, you know, I rather like that concept. Needs a lot of details etc, bu just starting out as a "size 2" colony or something (maybe even size 1), and then needing to do... something, to make it grow beyond that - and then once at size 3, it takes off on its own. That could be quite cool.

Oh, that would be lovely. Think of the vibe that remote frontier planets in shows like Firefly or The Mandalorian have, at the moment no Starsector planet is at that low (and adventurous) level.
Here's some inspiration :

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKu9_VVXkAM-XzT?format=jpg&name=medium)

(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/496/401/medium/kunal-rao-2.jpg?1462427229)

(https://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/simon-10.jpg)
[close]

Personally I wouldn't  mind my first colony being my main quest provider for some time. You might have to fend of local threads, ship in food, survey nearby systems, set up trade contacts with friendly neighbors... and your fledgling colony would basically pay you in growth percentage points. But maybe once you have established a faction all this would be done by them (i.e. automated) for your next colony.





Hmm. Well, it seems a bit... I don't know. I guess both a bit redundant (there's plenty of planets!) and complicated (where can you put a good mining station? how does it roll Ore conditions? how do you know ahead of time what the conditions will be? where/how can you build them? Etc). But there's also a "this would be cool" aspect to it which might make it worthwhile regardless, but... there's just a lot that would have to happen to make it work.

My, they could be an planetary industry (asteroid mining) that you build on planets which have little ore, but which are in a system with asteroid fields of some kind. And then the industry auto-builds a mining station somewhere in that system. That way no new UI is necessary.
And if you settle a system with an ancient station, repossessing it to give the asteroid mining industry a boost seems like an option.

Also, AI run stations seem like a great target for raids, and disabling them a new way to weaken enemies that you can't attack directly. And on the other hand, the vulnerability of your stations would guarantee that planetside mining would remain the more desirable option.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xeno056 on October 18, 2020, 04:22:36 PM
I don't know for non-income purposes.  Stability is useful for more than that, with colony fleets and ship quality being the big one.  If stability affects fleets much, then high stability may still be (too) useful just so colony patrols can kill invaders while player is away.  Especially now that player colonies are down to 10^6.  (Hmmm, I guess if I want core worlds alive, I better sat bomb some of the bigger ones a little bit so their expeditions are not so big.)

Also, Pathers!  If stability 10 is enough to keep Pathers at bay most of the time, then maybe keeping stability at 10 while Pathers hammer away for a long time may be the way to go if I want to attempt the full sector colonization game with alpha cores.  I certainly do not want to play whack-a-mole Pathers.  Once per year is only good if I can synch all cells to one base.  Otherwise, it is whack-a-mole Pathers time.

My thoughts precisely. Pathers are the big issue since they tend to show up on planets with Heavy Industry affecting ship quality and the like. Guess you can just, you know, build it elsewhere (like on the garden planet) but the hit is still something. Unless it is, you know, a LOT of credits and the amount is affected by industries on planet. Maybe not so much now that I look at all the sources of stability on the wiki now, but I guess I won't know until I play the update.

Orbital solar Arrays are great, but one question: Is that a tied to a planet randomly or something we can build? If it is a build able industry does it take up a slot? Is more fleshed out Terraforming coming down the line? I have so many questions. The Cryo-sleeper AoE is a great touch though.

You can't build them, no. They're basically like a special planetary condition with some extra visuals. Definitely not looking at terraforming; something along those lines may or may not happen, but it's not a "goal".

Aw. Well, still glad to have it. Hope we get more of the cool planetary anomalies along those lines down the road. Also shout out to boggled for his superb work on the Terraforming and Stations mod.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 18, 2020, 04:34:53 PM
If it were me, colonies would also start smaller and slower - not with a spaceport and "population&infrastructure" but with landing pads and homesteads.

Hmm, you know, I rather like that concept. Needs a lot of details etc, bu just starting out as a "size 2" colony or something (maybe even size 1), and then needing to do... something, to make it grow beyond that - and then once at size 3, it takes off on its own. That could be quite cool.

Oh, that would be lovely. Think of the vibe that remote frontier planets in shows like Firefly or The Mandalorian have, at the moment no Starsector planet is at that low (and adventurous) level.
Here's some inspiration :
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKu9_VVXkAM-XzT?format=jpg&name=medium)

(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/496/401/medium/kunal-rao-2.jpg?1462427229)

(https://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/simon-10.jpg)
[close]
Personally I wouldn't  mind my first colony being my main quest provider for some time. You might have to fend of local threads, ship in food, survey nearby systems, set up trade contacts with friendly neighbors... and your fledgling colony would basically pay you in growth percentage points. But maybe once you have established a faction all this would be done by them (i.e. automated) for your next colony.
Very simple idea: Colonies start at size 2 and automatically start building the Population And Infrastructure "building". Once this is build the colony is sufficiently developed ("tamed", "civilized", whichever word works best) to start taking in the waves of immigrants that make up the bulk of a colony's population growth, and so it'll start growing. Building a Spaceport next is technically optional at this point, but would obviously be very helpful to increase the colony's accessibility (and ability to bring in these immigrants).

I actually do like the idea of colonies not instantly going from a barren rock with 1K people and a dream in orbit around it to building a spaceport. Obviously some concerns that the idea will add to the mandatory babysitting problem, but I'm hoping those could be worked out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on October 18, 2020, 05:29:11 PM
Finally got through all the notes. Wow! I'm super excited for the new story content. Lots of quality of life improvements too.

Do the new enemies represent the intended pinnacle of enemy difficulty or are there more intended tiers coming after? (Being only a *hint* of end game after all)

The new fighter AI tags are interesting! What inspired those for vanilla? Or are they more for modders?

Also, does the CONSERVE_FOR_ANTI_ARMOR hint mean the weapon isn't used on shields?

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2020, 05:51:54 PM
Oh, that would be lovely. Think of the vibe that remote frontier planets in shows like Firefly or The Mandalorian have, at the moment no Starsector planet is at that low (and adventurous) level.
Here's some inspiration :

Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKu9_VVXkAM-XzT?format=jpg&name=medium)

(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/496/401/medium/kunal-rao-2.jpg?1462427229)

(https://www.thisiscolossal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/simon-10.jpg)
[close]

Personally I wouldn't  mind my first colony being my main quest provider for some time. You might have to fend of local threads, ship in food, survey nearby systems, set up trade contacts with friendly neighbors... and your fledgling colony would basically pay you in growth percentage points. But maybe once you have established a faction all this would be done by them (i.e. automated) for your next colony.

Yeah, I like this in general. Sort of, spread out the "acquire enough stuff to start a colony" phase into "actually just start one, and then do some stuff to build it up".



My, they could be an planetary industry (asteroid mining) that you build on planets which have little ore, but which are in a system with asteroid fields of some kind. And then the industry auto-builds a mining station somewhere in that system. That way no new UI is necessary.
And if you settle a system with an ancient station, repossessing it to give the asteroid mining industry a boost seems like an option.

Also, AI run stations seem like a great target for raids, and disabling them a new way to weaken enemies that you can't attack directly. And on the other hand, the vulnerability of your stations would guarantee that planetside mining would remain the more desirable option.

Ah, hmm, that could be very interesting, yeah. (Though I shudder to think of adjusting the raiding AI to handle this...)


Very simple idea: Colonies start at size 2 and automatically start building the Population And Infrastructure "building". Once this is build the colony is sufficiently developed ("tamed", "civilized", whichever word works best) to start taking in the waves of immigrants that make up the bulk of a colony's population growth, and so it'll start growing. Building a Spaceport next is technically optional at this point, but would obviously be very helpful to increase the colony's accessibility (and ability to bring in these immigrants).

Right, yeah, that seems like a pretty natural way to go about it!

Obviously some concerns that the idea will add to the mandatory babysitting problem, but I'm hoping those could be worked out.

I think "babysitting" only really applies to things that "just happen" at some random time, rather than things you basically explicitly signed up for doing.


Do the new enemies represent the intended pinnacle of enemy difficulty or are there more intended tiers coming after? (Being only a *hint* of end game after all)

Imagine if the endgame enemy was the Hegemony, and you were facing a couple of Lashers. Maybe with a pre-buff Enforcer thrown in there, to make it a challenge.

(It's possible I'm exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect...)

The new fighter AI tags are interesting! What inspired those for vanilla? Or are they more for modders?

:-X

Also, does the CONSERVE_FOR_ANTI_ARMOR hint mean the weapon isn't used on shields?

IIRC not generally, and unless the ship is panic-firing. But e.g. it might fire them at a high-flux enemy to force them into a tough choice, etc, so it's not a cut-and-dry binary thing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on October 18, 2020, 06:03:21 PM
Imagine if the endgame enemy was the Hegemony, and you were facing a couple of Lashers. Maybe with a pre-buff Enforcer thrown in there, to make it a challenge.

Wow that's even better than I hoped. That is... extremely exciting!

Quote
:-X

 ;D

Quote
IIRC not generally, and unless the ship is panic-firing. But e.g. it might fire them at a high-flux enemy to force them into a tough choice, etc, so it's not a cut-and-dry binary thing.

Ah thanks for the info!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 18, 2020, 06:12:27 PM
Babysitting a colony is probably at its worst when it is at size 5, when it is not quite big enough to defend against endgame threats (star fortress has too high demand), yet too big to abandon.  The few times I could not defend my size 4 or less colony, I cut my losses and abandon it, then rebuild it later when I am better prepared.  I cannot do that with a size 5 or bigger colony.

So far, weaker pirates can be held at bay with orbital station and modest ground defenses.  It is when major factions' expeditions get involved (or the -3/-50% pirates) that I want stronger defenses to repel endgame strong invaders.

If size 2 colonies become a thing, I hope there is a way to bypass the proposed introductory quest phase once player can plop them down left-and-right.

Just occurred to me that Pather cells spawn only on worlds that are size 4 or bigger.  If I want to spam alpha-run worlds throughout the whole sector, in a mad full sector colonization game, I need to make sure planets do not grow to size 4.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 18, 2020, 06:43:28 PM
Any plans for kinetic torpedoes?
Cruisers and capitals with salvage gantry? Does the phase troop transport come with Ground Support Package?

What if Size-7/5 industry colonies are made a part of endgame colony management instead of something available from the get go?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IronBorn on October 18, 2020, 08:10:10 PM
Colony nerfs and fighter rebalances! Nice!

Dover nerf should probably be changed to 14 DP, otherwise it is a light cruiser cost to deploy. And since cryosleepers usually spawn in less than optimal systems, would it be possible to allow the colony with the cryo facility to potentially reach a size of 7?

Look forward to the implementation of story points. Can they be used to stop pirate/ludic path activity in your colonies? And for a higher cost, would you be able to persuade them to target other factions? A little privateering to help you with the competition!

The fleets of 30 capitals sounds kind of bad, especially from a lore perspective. Will such fleets be rare? Would be cool if they are named, persistent fleets that pop up on the intelligence screen when created. Hunting down and destroying such a fleet would weaken a faction and it would take them some time to build such a fleet again. Major hostile actions, like losing a colony, would drastically accelerate the creation of the next fleet. Named fleets officers would also level, to be a consistent threat to the player.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2020, 08:45:31 PM
Any plans for kinetic torpedoes?
Cruisers and capitals with salvage gantry? Does the phase troop transport come with Ground Support Package?

The phase troop transport does, yeah, "no" on the other stuff.

What if Size-7/5 industry colonies are made a part of endgame colony management instead of something available from the get go?

I feel like there are only so many ways I can say I don't think it's a good fit in-fiction-wise.



And since cryosleepers usually spawn in less than optimal systems

See this part of the patch notes:
Quote
Cryosleeper: now has (gradually reduced) effect at up to 10 light-years; spawns in better star systems

Look forward to the implementation of story points. Can they be used to stop pirate/ludic path activity in your colonies? And for a higher cost, would you be able to persuade them to target other factions? A little privateering to help you with the competition!

They can't, no. I could see potentially doing something like that, though. The thing with story points is there's infinity possible cool uses for them - which is good! but also means that (infinity minus some finite number) of those cool uses won't see the light of day.

The fleets of 30 capitals sounds kind of bad, especially from a lore perspective. Will such fleets be rare? Would be cool if they are named, persistent fleets that pop up on the intelligence screen when created. Hunting down and destroying such a fleet would weaken a faction and it would take them some time to build such a fleet again. Major hostile actions, like losing a colony, would drastically accelerate the creation of the next fleet. Named fleets officers would also level, to be a consistent threat to the player.

Hmm - I'm not sure where you're getting the "fleet of 30 capitals" from; there's nothing that's like that! If you can clarify, I can respond better.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 18, 2020, 09:01:09 PM
The phase troop transport does, yeah, "no" on the other stuff.
Oh nice!


The fleets of 30 capitals sounds kind of bad, especially from a lore perspective. Will such fleets be rare? Would be cool if they are named, persistent fleets that pop up on the intelligence screen when created. Hunting down and destroying such a fleet would weaken a faction and it would take them some time to build such a fleet again. Major hostile actions, like losing a colony, would drastically accelerate the creation of the next fleet. Named fleets officers would also level, to be a consistent threat to the player.

Hmm - I'm not sure where you're getting the "fleet of 30 capitals" from; there's nothing that's like that! If you can clarify, I can respond better.
[/quote]
I think they're talking about Atlas MKII zombie death balls, late-game bounty fleets with 7 Conquests and alike. And expedition fleets in general.
Which did get fixed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on October 19, 2020, 12:30:52 AM
Well, this is a whollop of changes, and i'd rather not pick on individuals as these seem very much interlinked and should be taken as a whole experience. Howeves:

Are we going to get a hyperstorm map layer on the sector map? I don't remember how it was without Adjusted Sector, but at least with it, there doesn't seem to be any way to figure out where the hyperstorms are without almost flying into them. If I could, I'd try looking at a map and navigating around, but as it is, it's too much bother and I'd rather burn through.

If you press "1" on the map, it turns off the Starscape view and you can roughly see where the deep hyper areas are.

Honestly, by this point, shouldn't the 'real' map be the default? The 'pretty' map, as pretty as it is, is sorely not useful in the least as an actual map for navigation, and without a doubt a lot of players miss that little hotkey, and generally the hotkeys on the map screen, so even the fuel limits would be helpful to come pre-loaded.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on October 19, 2020, 01:01:10 AM
Heh, yeah, so much stuff going on I can hardly make sense of it all together.

I'm strangely impressed by the 'Move Slowly' change, which seems like a really elegant way to neaten up the small gameplay things around that.

Thanks for the patchnotes, Alex.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on October 19, 2020, 02:33:47 AM
I feel that plenty of people complaining about need for colony babysitting and invasions etc didn't play vanilla recently and have their experience coming from Nexerlin overdose.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kazimierz3000 on October 19, 2020, 02:57:09 AM
Hey Alex, keep up the incredible work.  I'm really excited to see 4k and UI updates are coming, being one of the people that loves playing this game in ultrawide in all its glory.  Thanks for what you do!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ishman on October 19, 2020, 03:20:47 AM
I'd like to further endorse the idea of being able to just plop down a beacon that says "here be colony" and then your organic mission is to actually transition from that into an actual faction - with a variety of options picked from a list to get to that point (mechanics wise, you could have a table of stuff that mods can add to that it draws from where it provides options for population (do you just give incentives for homesteaders, rescue cryosleepers,), administration, industry/resources, etc - seems like it could be a way to add another questline dynamic (that's still just a variation on go here do thing/pick thing up, return, but for engaging story reasons).

Besides that, I'd also like to not have too create a fully functioning colony to provide resources to the faction. I'd like the whole vast resources available in space aspect to be leaned further into - drop one lonely guy in an inflated balloon in charge of corralling a bevy of automated mining drones and their tenders in a ring system, mined out nickel-iron asteroids spun up for super cheap habitat space (no antimatter powered grav generators for the poor), lean into the whole 'these planets are *** and we have to make do' aspect of the Persean Sector. It's not as though there isn't the technology to do great things, but there's so much squabbling between the factions that no one's using the resources to do anything - until you the PC explodes upon the scene.

Basically Alex, I just want to put a particle collider around a gas giant and start mass-manufacturing supermaterials - these stars won't harvest themselves!

(Also John C. Wright has some fascinating stuff in his two space opera series)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 19, 2020, 04:32:35 AM
I'd like to further endorse the idea of being able to just plop down a beacon that says "here be colony" and then your organic mission is to actually transition from that into an actual faction - with a variety of options picked from a list to get to that point (mechanics wise, you could have a table of stuff that mods can add to that it draws from where it provides options for population (do you just give incentives for homesteaders, rescue cryosleepers,), administration, industry/resources, etc - seems like it could be a way to add another questline dynamic (that's still just a variation on go here do thing/pick thing up, return, but for engaging story reasons).

Besides that, I'd also like to not have too create a fully functioning colony to provide resources to the faction. I'd like the whole vast resources available in space aspect to be leaned further into - drop one lonely guy in an inflated balloon in charge of corralling a bevy of automated mining drones and their tenders in a ring system, mined out nickel-iron asteroids spun up for super cheap habitat space (no antimatter powered grav generators for the poor), lean into the whole 'these planets are *** and we have to make do' aspect of the Persean Sector. It's not as though there isn't the technology to do great things, but there's so much squabbling between the factions that no one's using the resources to do anything - until you the PC explodes upon the scene.

Basically Alex, I just want to put a particle collider around a gas giant and start mass-manufacturing supermaterials - these stars won't harvest themselves!

(Also John C. Wright has some fascinating stuff in his two space opera series)
That sound fun but it seems like a lot of work for Alex.
I do want to have player-built orbitals though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 19, 2020, 05:00:42 AM
I think "babysitting" only really applies to things that "just happen" at some random time, rather than things you basically explicitly signed up for doing.
Definitely. Colonies requiring extra stuff is fine, just so long as it isn't overly random. Or only able to be supplied once the colony actually demands something. Imagine putting down a colony, getting halfway to further exploration and suddenly the colony goes "actually, we need...eh, let me get out a d4 here...5d100 Food to continue working!", whereas the next colony demands 4d100 Domestic Goods, the next some amount of Luxury Goods and the next Lobster (for some inexplicable reason) or what have you. That'd be...less than ideal.

You could probably integrate this into the colonization screen pretty easily, I'd say, the one that says you need 1000 dudes, 100 Heavy Machinery and 200 Supplies to found a colony. Have another box below that lists what specific things that particular planet will need for a colony to reach the point where it'll be self-sufficient depending on the planet's conditions - say that every colony needs some amount of food/goods to tide them over until they can establish their own food sources, but planets with Destabilized Subpopulation specifically requires some amount of Marines to keep the initial colonists safe, tectonically active planets need additional supplies/heavy machinery to reinforce structures and build warning systems, High Gravity planets can require Heavy Armaments ("Humans require powered exoskeletons for regular movement and find even basic actions exhausting", which could be a part of the Heavy Armaments item, like power armor style?), etc.

The only real detail to remember (that I can come up with off the top of my head) is how to make sure that secondary list of required items is accessible remotely, without being at the specific planet. If the amount of items you need per hazard condition is static you could just look it up on a wiki and calculate it, or run around the core looking for planets with the right conditions and calculate what you need from that, but ideally it'd just be available from the Intel screen. That shouldn't be hard to add, though, I don't think.

Imagine if the endgame enemy was the Hegemony, and you were facing a couple of Lashers. Maybe with a pre-buff Enforcer thrown in there, to make it a challenge.

(It's possible I'm exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect...)
I'd just like to note that Frigates and Destroyers individually have killed me more often than Cruisers and Capitals combined. So in terms of fleets that have an actual record of making Swiss cheese of my hull ::)...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: what am i doing on October 19, 2020, 06:45:09 AM
I feel like there are only so many ways I can say I don't think it's a good fit in-fiction-wise.

Not only do I agree wholeheartedly that the whole massive colonies thing never really felt like they fit with the game world, I'd add that I think the player should be limited to only one size 6 colony (ie, a designated capital), perhaps two size 5, and any further settlements can only be outposts (ie, for mining). Otherwise, the player will end up with a bunch of size 6 colonies and it would seem odd that the player faction's colonies are all the same size when all the ingame factions have a variety of worlds ranging from densely populated capitals to sparsely populated settlements.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 07:18:06 AM
I feel that plenty of people complaining about need for colony babysitting and invasions etc didn't play vanilla recently and have their experience coming from Nexerlin overdose.
In my case, I refer to vanilla, unmodded gameplay when I talk about babysitting.  I have not touched Nexerelin in any of the 0.9a releases.  (Played mostly in pre-0.8a, and only once or twice during 0.8a.)

Not only do I agree wholeheartedly that the whole massive colonies thing never really felt like they fit with the game world, I'd add that I think the player should be limited to only one size 6 colony (ie, a designated capital), perhaps two size 5, and any further settlements can only be outposts (ie, for mining). Otherwise, the player will end up with a bunch of size 6 colonies and it would seem odd that the player faction's colonies are all the same size when all the ingame factions have a variety of worlds ranging from densely populated capitals to sparsely populated settlements.
Size 10^6 is only millions on the whole planet.  If anything, that seems too small on anything bigger than a small moon, especially on a good earthlike world.  That is maybe a big city or three and nothing else.  It is not like post-Collapse is reduced to caveman or medieval tech.  They still have interstellar magitech, just not as much as they had.

Also, it is not hard having 10^4 crew in an endgame fleet if built for it.  If I can plop down multiple 10^3 colonies in quick succession, it would be nice to plop a 10^4 colony instantly if I have the crew on hand.  Also, I tend to have crew and marines in the tens of thousands stockpiled in colony resources or storage.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on October 19, 2020, 07:39:49 AM
Quote
Devastator:

    Slightly increased explosion radius and core explosion radius and slightly reduced fuse range
    More likely to hit ships, and will do more damage with its explosions due to more targets being within core radius

Is the Devastator still going to be using shotRangeVariance for its projectiles?
And if so, is it going to be set the same as it is now?

One of the reasons a lot of people don't seem too keen on this weapon is that many of its shots are effectively 'wasted' starting at ~60% of the weapon's range.
Spoiler
As an exercise for my own curiosity I removed the variance and changed the projectile range from 30 to 52 (30 * 1.75), and it doesn't seem any more powerful. But it does at least feel somewhat more satisfying seeing most of the shots get near the target before bursting.
Recoil seems to be the limiting factor - as in the Devastator has horrible recoil stats, so the shots will form a perpendicular arc at max range instead of a stripe leading away from the ship.
[close]
If you don't feel that removing the variance entirely would be desirable, would you consider adjusting the range of the projectiles up to 40-45-ish and lowering the shotRangeVariance to match?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Goumindong on October 19, 2020, 07:47:20 AM
I feel that plenty of people complaining about need for colony babysitting and invasions etc didn't play vanilla recently and have their experience coming from Nexerlin overdose.
In my case, I refer to vanilla, unmodded gameplay when I talk about babysitting.  I have not touched Nexerelin in any of the 0.9a releases.  (Played mostly in pre-0.8a, and only once or twice during 0.8a.)

Not only do I agree wholeheartedly that the whole massive colonies thing never really felt like they fit with the game world, I'd add that I think the player should be limited to only one size 6 colony (ie, a designated capital), perhaps two size 5, and any further settlements can only be outposts (ie, for mining). Otherwise, the player will end up with a bunch of size 6 colonies and it would seem odd that the player faction's colonies are all the same size when all the ingame factions have a variety of worlds ranging from densely populated capitals to sparsely populated settlements.
Size 10^6 is only millions on the whole planet.  If anything, that seems too small on anything bigger than a small moon, especially on a good earthlike world.  That is maybe a big city or three and nothing else.  It is not like post-Collapse is reduced to caveman or medieval tech.  They still have interstellar magitech, just not as much as they had.

Also, it is not hard having 10^4 crew in an endgame fleet if built for it.  If I can plop down multiple 10^3 colonies in quick succession, it would be nice to plop a 10^4 colony instantly if I have the crew on hand.  Also, I tend to have crew and marines in the tens of thousands stockpiled in colony resources or storage.

between 1 to 10m. Which may be small on anything larger than a small moon (i mean its small on anything when you're spacefaring)

But its large within the time frame of a game because at that point you're going to be pushing the limits of immigration in creating citizens. Which means you would need to rely on natural doubling processes. Which is to say that 5% growth per year growth(which is quite high for wealthy industrial societies like spacefaring ones) would get you from 1 to 10m in 47 years (1.05^x = 10 -> xln(1.05)=ln(10) -> x= 47.19). Might as well just cut it off at size 6
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 19, 2020, 08:34:37 AM
Yeah player colonies reaching 10^10 when the largest sector colonies were 10^8 made no sense to me. Apparently my colony in 10 years magically exceeds the population of the entire sector by two orders of magnitude. 10^6 seems like a reasonable limit on the time scale of the game IMO.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MakeConquestGreatAgain on October 19, 2020, 08:41:53 AM
>didnt made the conquest great again

today is a sad day for the video game history...

also i agree with the trird guy above me, the devastator is awful to use because most of the shoots explode before they hit the target, i would also add that all the large point defence weapons (devastator, guardian, locust) suck.... it would be better to make them medium sized or give them a strong buff, ebcause as of now, you would be better putting a medium weapon in your large slot than puttting any of them

also also whats the deal with the warthog? just put the 3th mortar back... having 2 of them on a wing is enough of a nerf, they whent from op to COMPLETELY useless now and, form what i read, they gona be even worse, just entirelly useless
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 19, 2020, 08:46:45 AM
The Paladin PD (Guardian) is getting a huge buff tho, it's in the notes. And what's the deal with the Conquest pleas for buffs? You're like the third person here saying Conquest needs a buff when it's one of the strongest ships in the game. It got quite a few buffs in previous patches.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 19, 2020, 09:13:09 AM
Just want to say: Thank you Alex, for answering all these many questions, I appreciate it as always :)

I think "babysitting" only really applies to things that "just happen" at some random time, rather than things you basically explicitly signed up for doing.
Definitely. Colonies requiring extra stuff is fine, just so long as it isn't overly random. Or only able to be supplied once the colony actually demands something. Imagine putting down a colony, getting halfway to further exploration and suddenly the colony goes "actually, we need...eh, let me get out a d4 here...5d100 Food to continue working!", whereas the next colony demands 4d100 Domestic Goods, the next some amount of Luxury Goods and the next Lobster (for some inexplicable reason) or what have you. That'd be...less than ideal.

You could probably integrate this into the colonization screen pretty easily, I'd say, the one that says you need 1000 dudes, 100 Heavy Machinery and 200 Supplies to found a colony. Have another box below that lists what specific things that particular planet will need for a colony to reach the point where it'll be self-sufficient depending on the planet's conditions - say that every colony needs some amount of food/goods to tide them over until they can establish their own food sources, but planets with Destabilized Subpopulation specifically requires some amount of Marines to keep the initial colonists safe, tectonically active planets need additional supplies/heavy machinery to reinforce structures and build warning systems, High Gravity planets can require Heavy Armaments ("Humans require powered exoskeletons for regular movement and find even basic actions exhausting", which could be a part of the Heavy Armaments item, like power armor style?), etc.

The only real detail to remember (that I can come up with off the top of my head) is how to make sure that secondary list of required items is accessible remotely, without being at the specific planet. If the amount of items you need per hazard condition is static you could just look it up on a wiki and calculate it, or run around the core looking for planets with the right conditions and calculate what you need from that, but ideally it'd just be available from the Intel screen. That shouldn't be hard to add, though, I don't think.

Mh, that way you'd just dump in everything they will need at the beginning and forget about it, I don't really see the difference to the current system. To me the appeal is in actually taking care of your colony for a while. What differentiates that from annoying babysitting is that a) that phase has a foreseeable end and b) you have control over when to take growth-enhancing missions, they shouldn't distract you from what you are otherwise doing, like constant invasion fleets do.
I agree that simple fetch quests are not very interesting (but then again, some people like trade missions). But escorting your colony's very first trade fleet on its maiden voyage would be interesting, for example.

I like the idea that a colony's initial requirements are influences by the planetary conditions.


also i agree with the trird guy above me, the devastator is awful to use because most of the shoots explode before they hit the target, i would also add that all the large point defence weapons (devastator, guardian, locust) suck.... it would be better to make them medium sized or give them a strong buff, ebcause as of now, you would be better putting a medium weapon in your large slot than puttting any of them

also also whats the deal with the warthog? just put the 3th mortar back... having 2 of them on a wing is enough of a nerf, they whent from op to COMPLETELY useless now and, form what i read, they gona be even worse, just entirelly useless

I think the decreased range might be a buff for the Warthog, with it's slow speed it spends too much time running from one target to the next and getting separated from other wings, otherwise. Well, and it gets three fighters, so overall it seems much better now?

Devastator is also buffed with a bigger splash radius.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 19, 2020, 09:15:56 AM
Locusts are great? Using them as PD is not the best, but they will definitely help clear out fighters. They're really good at providing finishing damage for zero flux at range, and they have tons of ammo to last into a fight. They also are good at saturating PD to let other missiles and bombers through.

Also, conquest is quite well balanced atm, I'm not sure why people are upset that it hasn't been buffed.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 09:18:28 AM
Locusts is the best general-purpose large missile.  Enough ammo to last minutes of fighting, and PD generally cannot fully stop it.  A pair from a Conquest is nearly an unavoidable kill against frigates.  Even battleships will take noticeable damage from it if the whole burst hits hull.  The only other missile that might compete with Locusts is a MIRV fully powered up by both skills and ECCM.

Conquest is good enough, and seems on par for its cost.

Warthog's third fighter will be restored.  3x3+bug was too strong, 2x2 is too weak.  Next will be 3x2.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 19, 2020, 09:33:51 AM
Locusts tend to be my default large missile too. Though i too use them more for multi-purpose than strictly anti-fighter.
If anti fighter was the only thing they could be used for i agree they'd look pretty "meh", but when you realize it's not hyper specialized like that but actually useful in a large variety of situations their performance in that role looks a lot more respectable. (jacks of all trades aren't supposed to be the be-all-end-all in each of their trades after all)

As for Conquest, i really don't have enough experience on the capital side of the game to accurately rank and compare them to each other but when properly/decently specced i can at least safely say it's pretty powerful in it's own right, and i'm more than happy to shell out the 40 DP for it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 19, 2020, 10:01:06 AM
I was actually playing when this realization came into my head whilst thinking about the patchnotes:

Pirate Base Bounties are getting nerfed
+
Hammerhead is also getting a nerf and can't safely use the front two small mounts for anything but PD
+
Bases will not be damaged unless the body part in question is hit

Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy and has been cheesing pirate bases with an Overridden Hammerhead and its two Assault Chainguns  ::)


Speaking of Bases and Battlestations, I'm under the opinion that the High Tech base needs a shield arc buff as the non-ultimate versions has very big gaps where the future extension would be wich results in it being overly vulnerable mid game when compared to the other base types.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 19, 2020, 10:06:47 AM
Honestly, by this point, shouldn't the 'real' map be the default? The 'pretty' map, as pretty as it is, is sorely not useful in the least as an actual map for navigation, and without a doubt a lot of players miss that little hotkey, and generally the hotkeys on the map screen, so even the fuel limits would be helpful to come pre-loaded.

Those are all fair points. But the stars look pretty, so... look, let me have this one.

(A somewhat more salient point: I do think it's important to have a real-space view of the Sector visible in the game somewhere, just to make it feel like a "real" bunch of stars somewhere.)

I'm strangely impressed by the 'Move Slowly' change, which seems like a really elegant way to neaten up the small gameplay things around that.

Ah, thank you! (I do feel like that reduced things down fairly nicely, as far as all the movement-related *stuff* that was going on. Possibly some room for improvement, still, but at least it's in a place I feel ok with.)

I feel that plenty of people complaining about need for colony babysitting and invasions etc didn't play vanilla recently and have their experience coming from Nexerlin overdose.

Hmm - does Nexerelin adjust punitive expeditions etc? I've been kind of assuming that whenever I hear about that, it's a vanilla thing, but it'd be good to know if it's in fact different in Nex.


Hey Alex, keep up the incredible work.  I'm really excited to see 4k and UI updates are coming, being one of the people that loves playing this game in ultrawide in all its glory.  Thanks for what you do!

Thank you!



Besides that, I'd also like to not have too create a fully functioning colony to provide resources to the faction. I'd like the whole vast resources available in space aspect to be leaned further into - drop one lonely guy in an inflated balloon in charge of corralling a bevy of automated mining drones and their tenders in a ring system, mined out nickel-iron asteroids spun up for super cheap habitat space (no antimatter powered grav generators for the poor), lean into the whole 'these planets are *** and we have to make do' aspect of the Persean Sector. It's not as though there isn't the technology to do great things, but there's so much squabbling between the factions that no one's using the resources to do anything - until you the PC explodes upon the scene.

Hmm. On the one hand, that could work, but on the other hand, it seems tricky to integrate nicely with colonies. So just in general this is a "fairly unlikely maybe", I'd say - if there are *other* reasons that come up that make this desirable (i.e. if this resolves some other design issue), this could well happen, but for its own sake, probably not.

Basically Alex, I just want to put a particle collider around a gas giant and start mass-manufacturing supermaterials - these stars won't harvest themselves!

(Also John C. Wright has some fascinating stuff in his two space opera series)

Yeah, I can get behind that! (And, hey, you'll definitely be able to put something around a gas giant in the next release. A couple of things, actually. And the stars won't harvest themselves, indeed.)

(Thanks for the book rec!)


Definitely. Colonies requiring extra stuff is fine, just so long as it isn't overly random. Or only able to be supplied once the colony actually demands something. Imagine putting down a colony, getting halfway to further exploration and suddenly the colony goes "actually, we need...eh, let me get out a d4 here...5d100 Food to continue working!", whereas the next colony demands 4d100 Domestic Goods, the next some amount of Luxury Goods and the next Lobster (for some inexplicable reason) or what have you. That'd be...less than ideal.

Gotcha, yeah - same page here. But e.g. "you need X amount of <whatever> for the colony to get to the next step towards taking off on its own" but there's no rush/consequences if you don't do it now now now sounds reasonable.

I'd just like to note that Frigates and Destroyers individually have killed me more often than Cruisers and Capitals combined. So in terms of fleets that have an actual record of making Swiss cheese of my hull ::)...

I think "oh it's just a Kite with Reapers" has a winning record against player flagships overall.



Not only do I agree wholeheartedly that the whole massive colonies thing never really felt like they fit with the game world, I'd add that I think the player should be limited to only one size 6 colony (ie, a designated capital), perhaps two size 5, and any further settlements can only be outposts (ie, for mining). Otherwise, the player will end up with a bunch of size 6 colonies and it would seem odd that the player faction's colonies are all the same size when all the ingame factions have a variety of worlds ranging from densely populated capitals to sparsely populated settlements.

Welcome to the forum, btw!

I think the hazard rating mechanics will natrually add some size spread to colonies, basically doing this - a high hazard mining colony would stay small unless you invested a lot into putting more population there. I'm not 100% sure actually how the economics of this work out - whether increasing colony size to 6 in a case like that would be a net profit or not, actually. It depends on what it's exporting etc. Since you'd be getting, likely, some flat bonuses from AI cores/items/improvements/etc, getting a few more points of production out of a higher size - at high expense, to boot - might not be worth it. Will have to see, though.


In my case, I refer to vanilla, unmodded gameplay when I talk about babysitting.  I have not touched Nexerelin in any of the 0.9a releases.  (Played mostly in pre-0.8a, and only once or twice during 0.8a.)

Gotcha.


Is the Devastator still going to be using shotRangeVariance for its projectiles?
And if so, is it going to be set the same as it is now?

One of the reasons a lot of people don't seem too keen on this weapon is that many of its shots are effectively 'wasted' starting at ~60% of the weapon's range.
Spoiler
As an exercise for my own curiosity I removed the variance and changed the projectile range from 30 to 52 (30 * 1.75), and it doesn't seem any more powerful. But it does at least feel somewhat more satisfying seeing most of the shots get near the target before bursting.
Recoil seems to be the limiting factor - as in the Devastator has horrible recoil stats, so the shots will form a perpendicular arc at max range instead of a stripe leading away from the ship.
[close]
If you don't feel that removing the variance entirely would be desirable, would you consider adjusting the range of the projectiles up to 40-45-ish and lowering the shotRangeVariance to match?

Well - the shots blowing up early is the Devastator's thing. The point is that it's a weapon that:
1) Is good vs fighters/missiles, which get close naturally and are just more affected by it covering a wide area, and, importantly,
2) A weapon that becomes potentially highly damaging vs ships when used at close range

(If you increase the "range" from 30 to 52, that's actually a huge nerf - it means that it can never hit for full damage with the core of the explosion, since it'll always explode before it gets close enough. So that might explain which removing shot range variance, in tandem with that change, didn't make it more powerful.)

So, basically, what the current set of changes is doing is going in the opposite direction - making the shots more powerful, but keeping its core nature, where what you've tried makes the shots weaker but removes the dropoff in effectiveness with range. Well, doesn't remove entirely - since the inaccuracy is still there - but goes in that direction.

Keep in mind that it's pretty cheap flux-wise, too!

Just want to say: Thank you Alex, for answering all these many questions, I appreciate it as always :)

:D I appreciate all the interest and the feedback!

Mh, that way you'd just dump in everything they will need at the beginning and forget about it, I don't really see the difference to the current system. To me the appeal is in actually taking care of your colony for a while. What differentiates that from annoying babysitting is that a) that phase has a foreseeable end and b) you have control over when to take growth-enhancing missions, they shouldn't distract you from what you are otherwise doing, like constant invasion fleets do.
I agree that simple fetch quests are not very interesting (but then again, some people like trade missions). But escorting your colony's very first trade fleet on its maiden voyage would be interesting, for example.

I think the key difference is "will something bad happen if I don't address this when I wasn't planning to".

I like the idea that a colony's initial requirements are influences by the planetary conditions.

Yeah, I like that a lot too.


Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy and has been cheesing pirate bases with an Overridden Hammerhead and its two Assault Chainguns  ::)

(Team Shrike all the way here. I love piloting that ship.)


Speaking of Bases and Battlestations, I'm under the opinion that the High Tech base needs a shield arc buff as the non-ultimate versions has very big gaps where the future extension would be wich results in it being overly vulnerable mid game when compared to the other base types.

Hmm - with proper weapons, a high tech station can be hard to get to, really. Pirates don't really have them, though. And having those gaps to exploit is very much the idea, so if it needs a buff, it ought to come from somewhere other than removing its key characteristic!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 19, 2020, 10:18:18 AM
Hmm - with proper weapons, a high tech station can be hard to get to, really. Pirates don't really have them, though. And having those gaps to exploit is very much the idea, so if it needs a buff, it ought to come from somewhere other than removing its key characteristic!

Give the combat modules phase cloak when they're out of the shield

I figured that gap would be some sort of weakpoint of the station first time I saw it, but those those thrice-damned shield modules are so bloody hard to kill sometimes, spinning around and hiding behind the other modules and whatnot, trying to snipe them between the gaps in the shield it right up the alley to Star Wars :P

Anyway, I don't really possess many bright ideas as to how high tech bases can be buffed up a bit aside from that very heretical idea that just had to be barred in the hopes you don't read it and make everyone get PTSD from their first high tech battlestation. It's true that the range of the high tech battlestation is quite great but the actual DPS on targets with plenty of flux capacity/dissipation to just absorb the damage could even be called trivial in some cases.



Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IronBorn on October 19, 2020, 10:38:47 AM
The fleets of 30 capitals sounds kind of bad, especially from a lore perspective. Will such fleets be rare? Would be cool if they are named, persistent fleets that pop up on the intelligence screen when created. Hunting down and destroying such a fleet would weaken a faction and it would take them some time to build such a fleet again. Major hostile actions, like losing a colony, would drastically accelerate the creation of the next fleet. Named fleets officers would also level, to be a consistent threat to the player.

Hmm - I'm not sure where you're getting the "fleet of 30 capitals" from; there's nothing that's like that! If you can clarify, I can respond better.
[/quote]

I think I misread a comment somewhere about concern that the fleet cap would cause capital heavy fleets, but the patch notes say the fleets will be better balanced.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 19, 2020, 10:46:45 AM
I think the hazard rating mechanics will natrually add some size spread to colonies, basically doing this - a high hazard mining colony would stay small unless you invested a lot into putting more population there. I'm not 100% sure actually how the economics of this work out - whether increasing colony size to 6 in a case like that would be a net profit or not, actually. It depends on what it's exporting etc. Since you'd be getting, likely, some flat bonuses from AI cores/items/improvements/etc, getting a few more points of production out of a higher size - at high expense, to boot - might not be worth it. Will have to see, though.

My concern with this based on the current version of the game is that high hazard colonies tend to really lag behind other colonies in profits until they get big. So now if they are forced to be small, then it feels like the will never be as good as low hazard colonies. Do you feel like small mining colonies are valuable enough to be worthwhile over other colonies? The player can only manage a finite number so it feels like in the pursuit of making high hazard mining colonies thematically small, you might make them not very good in general. Unless the in-faction supply bonuses have been increased significantly, or the balance of profits for really good ore resources has changed, I can't really see a small mining colony with only one or two industries being useful. I'd rather just have another size 6 titan colony with 3 big production industries.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 11:10:18 AM
There is one reason for size 3 colonies - no Pather cells!  Load it up all size 3 worlds with all of the cores player may want, including alpha admin, and Pathers will not bother that planet.  Would be nice if there was an immigration lock to prevent colonies from growing at all.  (It gets annoying removing spaceport to tank growth then rebuild it later.)

Gas giants with low enough hazard (about 150%) and high volatiles is a good colony candidate.  That was my first colony in the last game I played.  Being able to jump directly on the planet without T. Jump is also convenient.  For industries, Mining and Military Base/High Command are a given.  Later, Heavy Industry (no forge) to boost production per month, and maybe Light Industry.

Quote
My concern with this based on the current version of the game is that high hazard colonies tend to really lag behind other colonies in profits until they get big.
Another problem is slower growth.  It is a pain to synch grow with other planets, which is important when I want to avoid shortages when one planet grows bigger first and gets shortages while the other planet(s) catch up.  However, that is only a problem when sizes reach 7 and up, which will be moot by size 6 limit.

However, high hazard may be useful if I want stunted size 3 planets that cannot grow to size 4 for the sector wide colonization through alpha cores.  Income from Pop&Inf from hundreds of worlds may be a way for high income.  (That was a plan I would try for income after a total core kill.)

For resources, I look for anything with 150% hazard or less and enough resources for self-sufficiency.  Since my late-game goal is total core kill (which kills all trade income), with ultimate endgame goal being full sector colonization (with alpha cores), all resources mean to me in the long run is self-sufficiency for my colonies.

P.S.  About high-tech stations.
The tier 1 station is not too bad.  Wait until the shield gaps overlap with the generators, blow them up, and the shields fall down.  Too bad the AI is not smart enough to do little more than mindlessly shoot straight ahead at the shields.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 19, 2020, 11:23:51 AM
Hmm - does Nexerelin adjust punitive expeditions etc? I've been kind of assuming that whenever I hear about that, it's a vanilla thing, but it'd be good to know if it's in fact different in Nex.
Punitive expeditions, not that I'm aware of. And personally I turn random player diplomacy off in Nex' config, so random faction DoWs and the sudden invasions they would bring isn't something I have to deal with either. Unless I actively pull the trigger first, but than obviously I'm fully aware of what I'm signing up for.

Gotcha, yeah - same page here. But e.g. "you need X amount of <whatever> for the colony to get to the next step towards taking off on its own" but there's no rush/consequences if you don't do it now now now sounds reasonable.
Something that would stall colony growth would probably end up being seen as a priority task regardless, since obviously we want our colonies to grow. But that would only feel like babysitting if I was only informed of what's needed X days after the colony is founded, and couldn't drop stuff off ahead of time (and not have those resources be consumed for other reasons). Or if, say, a trade fleet gets lost and the colony suddenly needs me to personally go acquire and deliver X amount of goods to resume production of the Spaceport or wait out the (month-long?) shortage, that'd easily end up feeling like babysitting.

But if I'm told "this colony will (eventually) need an additional 200 Heavy Machinery to become self-sufficient" right when I try to put down the colony, that's fine. That doesn't require me to stay near my colonies to manage stuff I can't manage remotely, or for me to drop whatever I'm doing and go do something else somewhere else with no warning because something random happened.

I think "oh it's just a Kite with Reapers" has a winning record against player flagships overall.
Hmm...I've actually gotten exploded by my own bombers deploying a field of faster-moving mines right behind me and my unshielded rear more often than I've gotten hit by a Reaper, actually, at least hit on something other than my shield. My main supply of crow comes from (usually Phase) ships sneaking behind me and slowly dismantling my engines. Still haven't found a decent way to deal with phase ships either, other than waiting for them to forget that they're functionally untouchable and get slaughtered.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 19, 2020, 12:11:57 PM
Commenting on the babysitting stuff:
I'm pretty sure Nex adds invasions and raids where hostile factions try to capture or harass your colonies, and those can be quite a bit bigger than the expeditions for the current colony level. They're not as common as expeditions though. I'm not sure if nex adjusts expeditions at all.

For me personally, I would want 'defend your colony' type missions to be rare and very difficult rather than common and fairly easy. I think the babysitting feeling comes from the fact that current expeditions happen somewhat frequently so that the player ends up constantly going back to their colony unless they build up some impenetrable defenses. This has led me to delay making a colony until I can afford to immediately build up a level 2 station and ground defenses so that I minimize the amount I need to personally defend.

I would like major defense type stuff (expeditions) to only really happen 3-4 times over a campaign, but I would also want it to be very difficult. Something where you know many months in advance and are trying to prepare by building up your fleet or whatever (maybe add some temporary defense mechanics as well). Maybe there could be some intel missions where you get a tip in a bar, or from a contact, that a faction is upset with your production and you can recon the fleet that is assembling or sabotage it etc.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 19, 2020, 12:44:20 PM

I feel like there are only so many ways I can say I don't think it's a good fit in-fiction-wise.



Kind of unrelated, but is the player the de-facto "leader" of planets they colonized, or more like ....a majority stakeholder?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 19, 2020, 12:57:28 PM
I think I misread a comment somewhere about concern that the fleet cap would cause capital heavy fleets, but the patch notes say the fleets will be better balanced.

(Gotcha!)


My concern with this based on the current version of the game is that high hazard colonies tend to really lag behind other colonies in profits until they get big. So now if they are forced to be small, then it feels like the will never be as good as low hazard colonies. Do you feel like small mining colonies are valuable enough to be worthwhile over other colonies? The player can only manage a finite number so it feels like in the pursuit of making high hazard mining colonies thematically small, you might make them not very good in general. Unless the in-faction supply bonuses have been increased significantly, or the balance of profits for really good ore resources has changed, I can't really see a small mining colony with only one or two industries being useful. I'd rather just have another size 6 titan colony with 3 big production industries.

With the caveat that I'm not 100% sure exactly how it'll shake out - you might have a touch time having 3 big production industries on 3 colonies as I'd imagine the special items to make this happen would be a bit thin on the ground.

I do see what you're saying, though. I guess we'll see? The hope is that item boosts will be enough to overcome hazard in an otherwise-suitable planet. If that doesn't work out, there's things to look at, I suppose - tuning items, maybe planetary conditions (something like ore deposits having production limits based on ore deposit quality, perhaps), etc...


Punitive expeditions, not that I'm aware of. And personally I turn random player diplomacy off in Nex' config, so random faction DoWs and the sudden invasions they would bring isn't something I have to deal with either. Unless I actively pull the trigger first, but than obviously I'm fully aware of what I'm signing up for.
Commenting on the babysitting stuff:
I'm pretty sure Nex adds invasions and raids where hostile factions try to capture or harass your colonies, and those can be quite a bit bigger than the expeditions for the current colony level. They're not as common as expeditions though. I'm not sure if nex adjusts expeditions at all.

Thank you for the added info!

Something that would stall colony growth would probably end up being seen as a priority task regardless, since obviously we want our colonies to grow. But that would only feel like babysitting if I was only informed of what's needed X days after the colony is founded, and couldn't drop stuff off ahead of time (and not have those resources be consumed for other reasons). Or if, say, a trade fleet gets lost and the colony suddenly needs me to personally go acquire and deliver X amount of goods to resume production of the Spaceport or wait out the (month-long?) shortage, that'd easily end up feeling like babysitting.

But if I'm told "this colony will (eventually) need an additional 200 Heavy Machinery to become self-sufficient" right when I try to put down the colony, that's fine. That doesn't require me to stay near my colonies to manage stuff I can't manage remotely, or for me to drop whatever I'm doing and go do something else somewhere else with no warning because something random happened.

Hmm, I don't think I agree here; "priority" is different from "long-term negative consequences if you don't". Having things to prioritize is fine. I mean, establishing a colony could be considered "babysitting" in that light. And if you know all the requirements ahead of time, that just translates into having to get more stuff together to start a colony, and that just seems boring. This'd have to get thought through some; I don't think pure resource requirements would be all that interesting here - rather, "things to do" might work better. For example, "survey the entire system", "establish a comm relay", "clear out a pirate base that's in a system next door", "deal with a Pather expedition (that may be hostile or friendly, with Consequences either way), etc...


For me personally, I would want 'defend your colony' type missions to be rare and very difficult rather than common and fairly easy. I think the babysitting feeling comes from the fact that current expeditions happen somewhat frequently so that the player ends up constantly going back to their colony unless they build up some impenetrable defenses. This has led me to delay making a colony until I can afford to immediately build up a level 2 station and ground defenses so that I minimize the amount I need to personally defend.

I would like major defense type stuff (expeditions) to only really happen 3-4 times over a campaign, but I would also want it to be very difficult. Something where you know many months in advance and are trying to prepare by building up your fleet or whatever (maybe add some temporary defense mechanics as well). Maybe there could be some intel missions where you get a tip in a bar, or from a contact, that a faction is upset with your production and you can recon the fleet that is assembling or sabotage it etc.

*thumbs up* generally speaking.


Kind of unrelated, but is the player the de-facto "leader" of planets they colonized, or more like ....a majority stakeholder?

Yes!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 19, 2020, 01:29:19 PM
Totally important question here.

What is your opinion on sub frigate size pilotable or autonomous craft? By this I mean gunships, patrol boats, corvettes, heavy fighters, the like.

The Robberfly Corvette (from Blackrock) in particular seemed to be a very interesting concept, light, manoeuvrable, unshielded, and very small, but with enough weaponry to pose a credible threat to low level freighters. And incredibly synergistic with tactical lasers.

I believe the Mayasuran Navy mod has a ship sized heavy bomber, a novel concept to be sure.

Anyways, it's simply that such things please me for some reason. Aside from that, I feel that shuttles as they are now are just a bit too bulky to be entirely credible, and something smaller would bring much flavour.

This is is so low on your priority list that it's alongside me when I first played Minecraft on creative, accidentally dug through the map into the void, and died. Mods have this kind of thing in spades, and while I feel they have it because it's genuinely cool, and a niche yet to be filled in the base game, they still do have it, so the only thing to contribute would be a canon variant. Not that that's not valuable in and of itself, but it's not on the same level as everything else.

Oh, and don't worry. This is a one time thing, no post pollution. The colony debate requires the majority of discussion, else sifting through all the random sh*t will be a nightmare. Or at least a time/energy sink. Space too, if you think about it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 19, 2020, 01:31:01 PM
I can't really speak much about colony development, because the thing I really want with colonies is the orders tab. Colonies by themselves are just puzzles of how to make the most money out of them and custom production is the only unique (for the time being) benefit.
Kind of unrelated, but is the player the de-facto "leader" of planets they colonized, or more like ....a majority stakeholder?

Yes!
Ah, the mathematician's answer.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 19, 2020, 01:39:35 PM
The way i see it you are their leader, or at least something along those lines, but not nearly as strictly as i've often seen people assume.

The way the numbers make the most sense (for me at least) is when you consider building an "industry" as building the government structures needed to deal with that industry (administration, regulation, other overhead etc) and then the migrants that actually build up and work in those industries pay a tax which ends up as your income.

This makes the most sense (again imo) for the relatively small sums needed to start something (and that it then grows along with the population by itself) and that you get *relatively* little return from it. Also makes it more reasonable that costs/benefits increase linearly while pop increases by orders of magnitude, and all kinds of other little things like that.
Often i've had the idea that people complaining about the mechanics "not making sense" expect people to migrate to your colonies to become your personal slaves. xD
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 02:15:45 PM
I think the babysitting feeling comes from the fact that current expeditions happen somewhat frequently so that the player ends up constantly going back to their colony unless they build up some impenetrable defenses. This has led me to delay making a colony until I can afford to immediately build up a level 2 station and ground defenses so that I minimize the amount I need to personally defend.
The frequency (especially once Free Port is on) is why I want to destroy the core worlds.  No core worlds, no more expeditions (or the need to defend them from zombie pirates).

I delay colony building until I can build up the necessary defenses immediately.  Level 1 battlestation and other modest defenses are enough for -1/-10% pirates.  I do not build any industries aside from Farming and Military Base so that I do not attract expeditions.  Once I think I obtain enough power to defeat endgame threats, I build up and grow population as fast as I can.

However, having impenetrable defenses for my colonies only solves part of the babysitting problem.  The other problem is the neverending zombie pirates that successfully raid (the mostly undefended) core worlds constantly unless I intercept the pirates.  In one game, I ignored the pirates for a few years and Asharu decivilized and (I think) few other worlds had zero stability from constant pirate raids.  If I want to save the core worlds for income purposes, I need to chase pirates constantly to save the core worlds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 19, 2020, 02:45:42 PM
Hmm, I don't think I agree here; "priority" is different from "long-term negative consequences if you don't". Having things to prioritize is fine. I mean, establishing a colony could be considered "babysitting" in that light. And if you know all the requirements ahead of time, that just translates into having to get more stuff together to start a colony, and that just seems boring. This'd have to get thought through some; I don't think pure resource requirements would be all that interesting here - rather, "things to do" might work better. For example, "survey the entire system", "establish a comm relay", "clear out a pirate base that's in a system next door", "deal with a Pather expedition (that may be hostile or friendly, with Consequences either way), etc...
Yeah, point taken. I'd be fine with it so long as it doesn't force me to interrupt what I'm doing and doesn't completely stall out colony stuff to the point where I feel like I'm wasting time if I don't get it done. Not that there's a time limit to the game, but it's best if stuff that takes time grows in the background while I go explore the Sector a bit more. Rather than me finishing all my explorations and only then doing the colony stuff, resulting in me sitting around for years waiting for stuff to grow.

However, having impenetrable defenses for my colonies only solves part of the babysitting problem.  The other problem is the neverending zombie pirates that successfully raid (the mostly undefended) core worlds constantly unless I intercept the pirates.  In one game, I ignored the pirates for a few years and Asharu decivilized and (I think) few other worlds had zero stability from constant pirate raids.  If I want to save the core worlds for income purposes, I need to chase pirates constantly to save the core worlds.
Random suggestion: Would turning off worlds decivilizing in the configs help with that at all? It makes no sense for it to happen to the core worlds like that and if your own colonies are at stability 0 for that long you'll likely have enough problems to deal with anyway. That's what I did in my last vanilla run, right before...some world, I can't remember which, but right before some core world would have decivilized. Only reason that save still has all the core worlds intact.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 19, 2020, 03:41:32 PM
Totally important question here.

What is your opinion on sub frigate size pilotable or autonomous craft? By this I mean gunships, patrol boats, corvettes, heavy fighters, the like.

The Robberfly Corvette (from Blackrock) in particular seemed to be a very interesting concept, light, manoeuvrable, unshielded, and very small, but with enough weaponry to pose a credible threat to low level freighters. And incredibly synergistic with tactical lasers.

Well, I'm not sure how this is different from "specialized frigate"! As far as larger fighters, I think they look kind of awkward when they fly over things or take off/land, so just aesthetically, that's not a direction I want to go.

I can't really speak much about colony development, because the thing I really want with colonies is the orders tab. Colonies by themselves are just puzzles of how to make the most money out of them and custom production is the only unique (for the time being) benefit.

Yeah, exactly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 04:44:20 PM
@ AcaMetis:  My worlds were fine.  It was the Indie worlds in Corvus and Arcadia that got wrecked because I ignored pirates (because I did not want to stop exploring in the fringe where my colonies were, and it should be up to the Hegemony and Indies to defend their worlds and clean up their mess.)

After that game, I have basically played Superman or Batman rushing to intercept every last pirate raid so that core worlds' stability does not drop.  (And I do not want their stability to tank so I can raid them for blueprints later and not decivilize those worlds.)  Chasing pirates to protect core worlds takes a big chunk of babysitting time, probably more than defending my worlds.  Then the core worlds thank me by sending expeditions.  It is like a scene right out of the movie High Plains Drifter where player is Clint Eastwood, the cowardly townsfolk whose town is painted red are all of the non-pirate factions, and the outlaws terrorizing the town until they die in the end are the relentless zombie pirates.

Pirates effortlessly decivilizing worlds in five to ten years is sort of lore breaking.  AI wars and other big conflicts among major factions are just not believable when zombie pirate overlords overwhelm everyone with ease.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FabianClasen on October 19, 2020, 05:13:34 PM
Not gonna lie. Absolutely hyped for this one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 19, 2020, 05:17:09 PM
@ AcaMetis:  My worlds were fine.  It was the Indie worlds in Corvus and Arcadia that got wrecked because I ignored pirates (because I did not want to stop exploring in the fringe where my colonies were, and it should be up to the Hegemony and Indies to defend their worlds and clean up their mess.)

After that game, I have basically played Superman or Batman rushing to intercept every last pirate raid so that core worlds' stability does not drop.  (And I do not want their stability to tank so I can raid them for blueprints later and not decivilize those worlds.)  Chasing pirates to protect core worlds takes a big chunk of babysitting time, probably more than defending my worlds.  Then the core worlds thank me by sending expeditions.  It is like a scene right out of the movie High Plains Drifter where player is Clint Eastwood, the cowardly townsfolk whose town is painted red are all of the non-pirate factions, and the outlaws terrorizing the town until they die in the end are the relentless zombie pirates.

Pirates effortlessly decivilizing worlds in five to ten years is sort of lore breaking.  AI wars and other big conflicts among major factions are just not believable when zombie pirate overlords overwhelm everyone with ease.
I just clear whatever bases have bounties put on them most of the time, and I never have issues with decivilization. I never fight individual raids.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 05:24:24 PM
I just clear whatever bases have bounties put on them most of the time, and I never have issues with decivilization. I never fight individual raids.
I try to clear base bounties too, but sometimes, I do not always catch them all on time, and I need to intercept a raid (unless I need the raid to succeed to proc a system bounty).  Ever since Asharu decivilized after a few years in that one game, I have hunted pirates mostly non-stop to prevent another decivilization (until I decide the core worlds need to die).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 19, 2020, 06:04:28 PM
I'm not too familiar with the lore but isn't the whole idea that after the initial shock of the collapse the situation has only deteriorated further? IIRC the whole syndrian diktat mess and the last AI war just before that are barely more than a decade ago at the start of the game too.
Granted, clearly the pirates don't behave as they realistically should, but from the parts of the lore that i know it shouldn't be too far fetched that the main factions are in a very vulnerable state compared to the power they had over the course of the last 2 centuries.

decivilizing in 5 or 10 years is also a bit of an exaggeration i'd think. I've had at least a few playthroughs where i kept going more than 10 years and don't think i've ever seen a decivilization warning come up for even a backwater planet of the main factions in an unmodded game.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 19, 2020, 06:16:47 PM
decivilizing in 5 or 10 years is also a bit of an exaggeration i'd think. I've had at least a few playthroughs where i kept going more than 10 years and don't think i've ever seen a decivilization warning come up for even a backwater planet of the main factions in an unmodded game.
Maybe it is random and I got unlucky.  I played unmodded game, and Asharu decivilized sometime between five to ten years in one of my games.  It was during the first v0.9a releases.  Also, I had no decivilization warning.  (That might have came in a later release.)  Asharu suddenly decivilized, like sudden death in overtime.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 19, 2020, 06:18:28 PM
Regarding the "new, very rare, and powerful enemy:"

Of course, you can't say much but will this enemy type just be roaming about in the wild or will there be specific steps that have to take place to trigger them? On the one hand, I would a "There be dragons" part of the map or some kind of event that keeps the player humble while on the other hand, I would hate for a new player to get stomped prematurely. At least the [REDACTED] have warning beacons.

Also, if current threats are "a couple of Lashers/Enforcers" and what is planned is "the whole Hegemony," (even withe hyperbole)...that sounds both terrifying and exciting. I have my theories but I do hope that the player isn't the only one invested in stopping the existential threat. 
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 19, 2020, 06:22:22 PM


Yes!

as expected
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 19, 2020, 07:56:21 PM
Will planets with disruoted spaceports still generate procurement missions? The "Donn raid-and-trait" strategy makes getting credits too easy.

Any plans for having more than 1 comm-sniffer and not getting removed during maintenance? Intel-gathering from contacts instead of relays?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on October 19, 2020, 11:24:48 PM
Those are all fair points. But the stars look pretty, so... look, let me have this one.

(A somewhat more salient point: I do think it's important to have a real-space view of the Sector visible in the game somewhere, just to make it feel like a "real" bunch of stars somewhere.)

I don't disagree, but i'd say the gameview itself does enough work on its own to look outstanding and spacey. :P Plus, weighted against new player on-boarding it really takes its toll.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on October 20, 2020, 12:58:27 AM
Bit late, but Re: Colony Limits... I don't think putting a hard lock on one size 6 and size 5 for the rest would be a good idea. Or even that a hard limit at all is necessary. Colonies should grow organically. And since every step up is a 10x growth, it should be simple to tweak the formula for anything above size 6 to take too long for comfort.

Just as it is with XP currently, which really peters out above level 70 if you have levels unlocked. You don't need a hard limit. The limit is time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: huhn on October 20, 2020, 01:30:23 AM
so how long does it take to grow from millions to 10 of millions?

the first grow steps can be easily explained by migration but when you reach millions that simply doesn't add up anymore.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 03:51:10 AM
Bit late, but Re: Colony Limits... I don't think putting a hard lock on one size 6 and size 5 for the rest would be a good idea. Or even that a hard limit at all is necessary. Colonies should grow organically. And since every step up is a 10x growth, it should be simple to tweak the formula for anything above size 6 to take too long for comfort.
I would not want 10^6 for one and 10^5 for the rest.  Makes meeting demand a pain.  Also probably would need to babysit my colonies more (unless I sat bomb the big core worlds to lower their populations and weaken their expeditions permanently).  Even if limits are higher, having one world having a higher limit than another means the smaller worlds need to produce more to satisfy demand for the bigger planet.

Suggestion:  If core worlds get sat bombed but they survive (say, player sat bombs Chicomoztoc from size 8 down to size 5 or less), they should regrow their size up to 10^6 eventually.

P.S.  While having soft cap may seem okay, it could push people into min-maxing population growth, like using Free Port solely for population growth and/or colonizing in systems with the sleeper ship in long haul games that last tens of cycles.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on October 20, 2020, 04:10:05 AM
So if a guy wants to play extremely long games where a size 7 colony won't take 30 cycles but thanks to his min-maxing will only take 20 cycles to complete.... shouldn't we let him have it? It's not a massive upgrade and he won't feel like he's arbitrarily locked out of having a "real planet". It's just that like a "real planet", it will happen over a course of decades or centuries and not just years.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Modo44 on October 20, 2020, 04:26:44 AM
It's a single player game. If someone wants to min-max certain aspects of it, they will. Thinking you can win vs nerds armed with spreadsheets and mods is folly. "Hard limits" lol
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 20, 2020, 04:53:31 AM
So if a guy wants to play extremely long games where a size 7 colony won't take 30 cycles but thanks to his min-maxing will only take 20 cycles to complete.... shouldn't we let him have it? It's not a massive upgrade and he won't feel like he's arbitrarily locked out of having a "real planet". It's just that like a "real planet", it will happen over a course of decades or centuries and not just years.

The idea is to stop people from forcing themselves into gameplay that is not fun, because they feel they have to play "optimally" or "max out everything". If just some people who really want to hang around in a save for 50 years were to see the colonies grow to size 7, that would not be a problem. But if people hang around in the game, actually bored out of their mind, just to see that number change from 6 to 7, that's bad game design.

Here's a GMTK video about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L8vAGGitr8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L8vAGGitr8)

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 04:58:10 AM
Hard limits are useful to curb excessive grinding or min-maxing.

Quote
So if a guy wants to play extremely long games where a size 7 colony won't take 30 cycles but thanks to his min-maxing will only take 20 cycles to complete.... shouldn't we let him have it? It's not a massive upgrade and he won't feel like he's arbitrarily locked out of having a "real planet". It's just that like a "real planet", it will happen over a course of decades or centuries and not just years.
For someone who does not want to wait too long, but wants to get his big planet badly enough for whatever reason, gameplay would be dominated by min-maxing that one stat (population growth).

That is like soft level limits in pre-0.8 Starsector.  Do whatever it takes to maximize xp gain (food runs with big Atlas fleets in 0.65), and grinding levels here is like grinding for rare items in Diablo 2.  Grinding for levels becomes the game.

If someone perceives something to be very good, but its a royal pain to obtain, extraordinary or degenerate methods may be employed to get it (assuming they do not outright cheat).

Quote
But if people hang around in the game, actually bored out of their mind, just to see that number change from 6 to 7, that's bad game design.
That would be me.  I have done this for months, maybe years, with level and item grinding in Diablo 2.  Obsession can trump boredom (because the player really want that goal badly enough), and that is not healthy.

That is why I have not seriously attempted the mad quest of full sector colonization yet, although I did grind Ordos in red systems for about forty-something alpha cores, just to see what kind of grinding I would need to do to get the cores needed to colonize everything, and to find what can kill Radiants the least painfully.  I might actually attempt it after Starsector is officially finished.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Orochi on October 20, 2020, 04:59:32 AM
There was something you said earlier in the ball-park range of it seeming like some of us just want more colony size because its more pluses, and that's not entirely wrong. In fact, it's probably, at least three fourths correct. But you have to understand something Alex. I hate to break it to you, but just about every person that plays Startsector is, to some extent, a munchkin that will number crunch the game until they can glass the entire sector with the exhaust fumes of their fleet full of cheese. I don't know how you've not noticed this in the decade-ish time that you've been working on the game, but it's the truth.

I'm not saying you have to, or even should give in to the munchkin hive-mind, but you should be aware it exists at least.

Now onto my thoughts.

Personally, I feel like capping colony size is just a solution looking for a problem. Essentially, the only problems of large Colony sizes that I can see, are the lore conflict, the lack of "realism", and the thematic issues, all things you've previously said should move out of the way for game mechanics. Those three things could be more easily 'fixed' just by reducing the population number of each colony size, or giving certain core worlds specific conditions that, for lore-reasons just state they have larger populations than what their size would otherwise state.

On the other hand, limiting colony size loses granularity. While there aren't currently any mechanics that take advantage of having specific sizes of worlds other than industry limitations, you lose that potential by getting rid of it. Also having more stages just gives players a better sense of progression and... well people tend to like it because we're munchkins. My point being that it seems like a choice that has nothing but disadvantages while the current system is just kind of... fine.

As far as mining colonies go, you're talking about trying to fundamentally work against concepts that have been implemented in the colony system. There are four reasons to have colonies: ship/weapon production, storage, tech-mining, and money. Two of these are enhanced by having larger colonies, and the rest have nothing to do with colony size. Bigger colonies make more money and more stuff. They get more market share, export more goods, and you can stack more buffs on them.

Plus, production doesn't matter beyond the profits they make. Sure, you have to make sure your colonies have access to all the goods they need for their structures/industries to function, but that's really just an extention of the profit they make. In service to this, mining (ore, organics, and rare ore) isn't even close to the highest income products, Metals Transplutonics, and Volatiles are. The income you make form ore, and rare ore are basically trivial, to the extent that you should only ever need at most one ore and one rare ore mining world to supply the rest of your refinery empire. And even that still mandates that your mining colonies have large populations for the large resource supply.

Basically, you are never going to get 'high-hazard small mining colonies' organically. Unless you hamfist it in some way, it's just not happening. It just doesn't work with the mechanics. The only option I can think of is either a fundamental change to the mining system so that more population doesn't improve goods produced, a massive increase to mining profitability just for having the industry, or effectively some kind of 'mining colony' button that limits the colony growth, but gives massive bonuses to accessibility and production (and either prevents or doesn't benefit volatiles, farming, refineries, etc).

As for requiring items to bring income up to pre-nerf, or rather '0.95' levels, once again, it feels more like a solution looking for a problem. While currently colonies can quickly make money a non-issue, that's not because they're unbalanced but because the game has a fundamental lack of resource sinks in end game. Most money is spent on maintenance through labor costs, replacement ships, supplies, and fuel, or investment through buying more ships/weapons or colony stuff. Getting a stable source of passive income fundamentally changes this, and it will always be either too much or not enough as long as there isn't something else to sink it in. Basically all you're doing is stretching out the mid game and kicking the problem down the line. It's not going to change the fact that, eventually, I'm going to have a bunch of colonies, covered in alpha cores, each planet a fortress unto itself, spitting money at me faster than I can spend it. It's the munchkin way.

I can't tell you what end game should be, as I don't know what your plans are, but I can tell your right now that farming [REDACTED] for AI cores, raiding, and colony shenanigans ain't it. That stuff all feels like gearing up for the final boss, like the Loyalty missions in Mass Effect, or getting the Master Sword. It feels like a rollercoaster about to come to a hilltop and instead of going over and finishing the coaster, you're just trying to make the hill bigger.

I'm not trying to demand 'more content', I'm saying that the current game crescendos in a way that suggests there is something unfinished waiting at the end, and that it seems to me the problem is not that the mechanics haven't been tweaked 'just right', but rather that it either needs to be changed in a fundamental way or an ending given.

Oh, and though I appreciate rolling the story points and streamlining the skill system, I disagree with the design choice to limit the number of skills a player can have (even though that isn't a new addition). Mainly because it doesn't accomplish your goal, i.e. adding a meaningful choice. A fundament problem with the system is that there will always be a 'best' skill out of every choice. You can get those skills infinitely close, but you can never truly make them equal. Because of this, there will always be a 'best' build, and players will always gravitate towards it.

To give an example, let's take that navigation skill example. The one that increases overall speed is better. Why? Because it's an overall speed boost, vs making up for a penalty. I can just limit the times when I need to 'slow-move', which I will be used to anyway beforehand. In contrast, the slow-move buff only helps in situations that are sub-optimal to begin with, and no matter how fast you go when slow-moving, I assume it's never going to overtake someone going normal speed. The choice is between lessening a penalty that happens when you essentially screw up positioning in the map, or buffing everything else. It's especially egregious because neither really defines your gameplay, it's not a meaningful choice, it's a nobrainer.

If you really, absolutely, want to provoke different builds, in my opinion, the only real option is to make it so either each choice has nothing to do with each other, or fundamentally changes the way you play the game. An example (But not a good one) would be something like Transverse Jump or Emergency Escape Jump (that gives you a way to escape battles), or 20% extra OP vs extra administrators. Again those are not suggestions, just examples of choices that I feel would be truly 'meaningful'.

What's more, it's more than likely, that the industry/general/utility skills will be, once again prioritized over the combat skills because as always, generally speaking, it's not the player's combat performance that matters most. That's... one more thing that's sort of fundamental to the game as well.

My logic is that making it either a choice that defines the way you play, or some kind of Apples to Oranges thing obfuscates the 'best option'. Despite that, it still doesn't eliminate the problem of there being a 'best choice'. And quite a few players will feel compelled to take the 'better' choice, even when they would prefer something else. Again, cause we're all kind of munchkins.

As a word of caution, any game like this that constantly drains at your resources tends to provoke min-maxing. I hate to say it, but your idea of balance tends to drag the game out and make things more difficult than they absolutely have to be. It's not a bad thing in of itself, but it does naturally discourage the organic feel you seem to be chasing. The less wiggle room people have, the more they tend to gravitate to things that they 'know' work, and the less they are inclined to actually explore mechanics. This leads into the base-bounty nerf. It's just going to further squeeze margins tighter for people. As a source of stable income decreases, the number of risks you are willing to take decrease. The less you want to buy that ship you haven't used, or try out a new fleet composition, because if you do lose something you can't afford to replace it, or the time spent to do so will set you back too far.

In other words, it means it attracts munchkins and breeds munchkin tendancies into the non-munchkins that stay.

Regardless, I hope my comments don't come off as... pushy or demanding. I believe that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to accomplish. It's just that I think the way you're going about it won't get the results you want. While I certainly have my own desires for what I would 'like' from the game and perhaps I'm projecting my own desires onto you, I'm trying to go on what you've said in the past.

In the end, I'm an opinionated person, and as I write things like this, I tend to get defensive as I pick holes in my own comments. Also its been a few days since I've checked the patch notes or followed the conversation, so maybe some of these have been addressed, or are misunderstandings. I apologize in advance if this is the case.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 20, 2020, 05:36:45 AM
just about every person that plays Startsector is, to some extent, a munchkin that will number crunch the game until they can glass the entire sector with the exhaust fumes of their fleet full of cheese.

Mh, I think you are confusing "every person that plays Startsector" with "many that play Startsector and are actively discussing it on the internet". The latter is a self selecting group that does not represent the whole playerbase, a vocal minority of of sorts.

I believe most players are simply picking options that seem fun or exciting to them.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 20, 2020, 05:38:06 AM
just about every person that plays Startsector is, to some extent, a munchkin that will number crunch the game until they can glass the entire sector with the exhaust fumes of their fleet full of cheese.

Mh, I think you are confusing "every person that plays Startsector" with "many that play Startsector and are actively discussing it on the internet". The latter is a self selecting group that does not represent the whole playerbase, a vocal minority of of sorts.

I believe most players are simply picking options that seem fun or exciting to them.

+1
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 20, 2020, 05:49:46 AM

Mh, I think you are confusing "every person that plays Startsector" with "many that play Startsector and are actively discussing it on the internet". The latter is a self selecting group that does not represent the whole playerbase, a vocal minority of of sorts.

I believe most players are simply picking options that seem fun or exciting to them.

Exactly.

As for me, i've read up plenty on most aspects of SS over the 11 months or so since i bought it, and i still don't min/max much of anything even though that gives me the knowledge to do so (or at least try).
It's a single player game, and not that difficult once you get the hang of it (at least once you've built up a nice core of ships), so why would I? I'd rather sacrifice some of the min maxing for doing things that make "role playing" sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 20, 2020, 05:50:37 AM
The idea is to stop people from forcing themselves into gameplay that is not fun, because they feel they have to play "optimally" or "max out everything".
What would force players to sit around for 20-30 ingame years to watch colonies grow from size 6 to size 7? It's not a requirement to unlock the super secret final boss (I'm assuming), all it does is make a few numbers bigger. And not in a way that's likely to make any sort of difference by that point. I don't recall anyone feeling forced to sit around until their colonies reach size 10 in the current patch, I don't understand why it would become a problem in the upcoming one.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Orochi on October 20, 2020, 06:28:01 AM

Mh, I think you are confusing "every person that plays Startsector" with "many that play Startsector and are actively discussing it on the internet". The latter is a self selecting group that does not represent the whole playerbase, a vocal minority of of sorts.

I believe most players are simply picking options that seem fun or exciting to them.

You're right. I can't speak for people who don't actively discuss their opinions. However, its the same both ways. Calling the 'many people that actively discuss the game online' a vocal minority with no proof the majority is unlike it is probably even less like to be correct than my assumption that they at least speak for a great part of the player base.

Perhaps I should limit it to "Almost everyone that voices their opinion on Starsector shows munchkin tendencies". I suppose I should also specify what I'm talking about.

When people pick options 'for fun' in games like Star Sector, they usually must also pick options that are optimized to counter balance it unless they don't care about making progress or essentially running their saves into the ground. Most of the things that I'm talking about, most people wouldn't event think about as Min-maxing, like picking a Buffalo over a Tarsus... which is totally min-maxing the logistical profile of your fleet. Or settling in a system with lots of moons to stack your defenses.

Lots of the stuff that people consider 'just the thing you do', like take Transverse Jump asap, is Munchkin min-maxing. The fact that not doing those things is considered either new-player behavior or an intentional role-play/difficulty increase is proof enough that most people that play this game are, to an extent min-maxing munchkins, even if they don't take every opportunity to be as optimal as possible.

This is supported by just about any discussion related to ship fitting that isn't a meme, as well as the fact that probably half the time most people play the game is spent there. Even if they aren't breaking out calculators and looking at graphs, they tend to be min-maxing so that they can support some kind of cool option.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 06:45:41 AM
For one or two games, I did not take Navigation because I wanted three more skill points for combat skills.  Eventually, I got fed up with bringing extra tugs and tankers, not to mention crossing pulsar beams repeatedly because pirate bases kept respawning in neutron star systems, and eventually got Navigation.

In my latest game, I did not want to take Sensors 1 because I wanted the skill point for something else.  Eventually, I had a pirate base bounty in Penelope's Star that I spent thirty minutes trying to find, but could not.  Usual tricks to find the base ended in failure.  I grabbed Neutrino Detector and it revealed the base hidden in the outermost asteroid belt, too far from planets, relays, and other stuff that are usually close by.  I consider Sensors 1 mandatory for the rare times a pirate base spawns in an unusual spot that makes it almost impossible to find without neutrino detector.

Most of all, I like colonies, but not pather cells, so I spent nine skill points in Industry solely for colony skills, and considered Planetary Operations in Leadership for the stability bonus (effectively +1 colony).  After finding out Pathers were bugged, I felt buyer's remorse because those points wasted in colony skills ended up gimping my combat power (because points I wanted in combat went to colonies because I also wanted to be a space lord with a big empire).  Alpha cores are unlimited (provided the Nexus is left alone to spawn unlimited Ordos), but skill points are not.  No respec makes it worse.

At least next release will have respec, although Alex wrote there may be individual exceptions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DancingMonkey on October 20, 2020, 07:07:51 AM
Only read the OP so sorry if you already answered;

Is it possible to make the move slowly key a toggle on? Maybe by a setting?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Toxcity on October 20, 2020, 07:14:34 AM
I'm just excited since this patch seems to be giving life to the midgame. Hopefully the fleet composition changes make the bounty progression smoother too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ProfessionalHuman on October 20, 2020, 07:51:56 AM
Wow, that's not a patch, that's a whole new game! Really excited about patch notes (especially personal contacts). One of the best games i played. Keep up the great work!

If it isn't too late to add something in the upcoming patch, can we have a toggable ship control mode when camera is fixed to the ship and turns around with it? Right now if i turn my ship 180 degrees (when it's nose is pointing to the bottm side of the screen) controls changes like so:
I understand, that technically controls are correct, but this is very confusing and is the reason why i not pilot frigates/any fast and agile ships. I searched through forum and i am not only one having this problem. But, unfortunatly, i havent found any solution.

P.S.: English is not my native language, so sorry for any mistakes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 20, 2020, 07:56:32 AM
If that was changed and the keys mean "move north/south/west/east" instead then how do you see that working when your ship is pointed diagonally? Should the ship just half move forward/half strafe? Changing this would mean you can just move into 8 directions too.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 20, 2020, 08:26:50 AM
@ ProfessionalHuman: Welcome to the forum! The control scheme you are proposing has actually been tried early on, but was found to be disorienting. You can read more here, if you like: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8643.0 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8643.0)


When people pick options 'for fun' in games like Star Sector, they usually must also pick options that are optimized to counter balance it unless they don't care about making progress or essentially running their saves into the ground. Most of the things that I'm talking about, most people wouldn't event think about as Min-maxing, like picking a Buffalo over a Tarsus... which is totally min-maxing the logistical profile of your fleet. Or settling in a system with lots of moons to stack your defenses.

Lots of the stuff that people consider 'just the thing you do', like take Transverse Jump asap, is Munchkin min-maxing. The fact that not doing those things is considered either new-player behavior or an intentional role-play/difficulty increase is proof enough that most people that play this game are, to an extent min-maxing munchkins, even if they don't take every opportunity to be as optimal as possible.



Well, if you define "munchkin" broadly enough to include everybody trying to play the game successfully, than most people will fall into the category, yes. Before you talked about everybody number crunching and glassing the entire Sector, though.

To me its important that the game is open enough to define your own success. For some that might be galactic conquest, for others exploring the Sector, building a beautiful colony, being a great smuggler or bounty hunter or making friends with the Pirates. For these different playstyles there are different optimal skills, so in the end they all have a reason to exist.

Only read the OP so sorry if you already answered;

Is it possible to make the move slowly key a toggle on? Maybe by a setting?

Thanks!

Pretty sure its gonna be a toggle?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on October 20, 2020, 09:24:02 AM
I think making the Light Needler 7 OP is a mistake. It still won't be useful for ships that want more sustained kinetic pressure, and on ships that can fully utilize the burst like the Sunder or Doom it'll be undercosted. The Railgun nerf is appropriate, though.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on October 20, 2020, 09:24:50 AM
So if a guy wants to play extremely long games where a size 7 colony won't take 30 cycles but thanks to his min-maxing will only take 20 cycles to complete.... shouldn't we let him have it? It's not a massive upgrade and he won't feel like he's arbitrarily locked out of having a "real planet". It's just that like a "real planet", it will happen over a course of decades or centuries and not just years.

The idea is to stop people from forcing themselves into gameplay that is not fun, because they feel they have to play "optimally" or "max out everything". If just some people who really want to hang around in a save for 50 years were to see the colonies grow to size 7, that would not be a problem. But if people hang around in the game, actually bored out of their mind, just to see that number change from 6 to 7, that's bad game design.

"Just forbid it completely" is the nuclear option, though, and should be used as a last resort in the most extreme cases only.
Way too many games do this way too often - completely forbidding players from doing certain things because there *may* be a difficult design decision somewhere down the road there.

In this particular case, I think it's extremely important that we be allowed to potentially grow colonies as large as all the pre-existing factions' colonies (given enough time and economic boom to draw in population), even if it is not required to succeed within the main gameplay loop, or likely to happen in any average campaigns.
A hard-limit that entirely takes this off the table from the very get-go is kind of taking me out of the "your faction is a real faction" vibe that I want. One of the most amazing strengths of this game is that I am using the same ships, the same mechanics to equip those ships, to staff them with officers, etc. as the NPCs. For the most part it feels like I am playing the same game as them, and that is good. Similarly, the core fantasy of being able to start my own faction is that I am playing on an equal playing field with the big guys and can also get to where they are if I surpass enough hardships (which is also what makes starting your own faction in mount&blade so satisfying, RP-wise), but it kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails if I know from the get-go that there is an insurmountable upper barrier that cannot be surpassed no matter what.

I mean yes, sure, there are some extremely obsessive players who inflict harm upon themselves if given freedom, but that is a poor excuse to take things away from ALL players. Because you cannot reasonably sift through every single part of the entire game and cut out or limit stuff that promotes obsessiveness, and do whatever needs to be done to your game to ensure nobody hurts their enjoyment by obsessing over something. If you did, what would even be left of starsector? Every part of this game is obsessiveness-bait.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: duckasick on October 20, 2020, 10:20:51 AM
I really love game devs like you. You give just enough info to make me get really excited about what's next, but you don't give any big spoilers. I really can't wait for the new raiding mechanics and story content!

Also, completly off-topic, but are there any mods that interest you content or gameplay wise?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
A hard-limit that entirely takes this off the table from the very get-go is kind of taking me out of the "your faction is a real faction" vibe that I want. One of the most amazing strengths of this game is that I am using the same ships, the same mechanics to equip those ships, to staff them with officers, etc. as the NPCs. For the most part it feels like I am playing the same game as them, and that is good. Similarly, the core fantasy of being able to start my own faction is that I am playing on an equal playing field with the big guys and can also get to where they are if I surpass enough hardships (which is also what makes starting your own faction in mount&blade so satisfying, RP-wise), but it kinda takes some of the wind out of the sails if I know from the get-go that there is an insurmountable upper barrier that cannot be surpassed no matter what.
My first or second thought about factions exceeding the limit while I cannot is to sat bomb them down to size (6) if I do not want to destroy them outright (for purposes of income), especially if their expeditions are too big.  If I cannot have big colonies like them, no one can!

I would like to reach size 10^7 on my primary colonies like most major factions.  I guess 10^6 is okay.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on October 20, 2020, 10:42:53 AM
In terms of game mechanics, capping out player colony growth at size 6 seems fine to me.  It is arbitrary, but so was size 9 or 10.  If credits earned and monthly ship production is where it needs to be, it doesn't really affect game play in the end.  Soft capped growth is an option but I don't see it as compelling.  The point of the game isn't to make the biggest colonies, it is to fly around and blow spaceships up.  Size 6 colonies can supply sufficient credits and material already to allow you to completely lose your personal fleet and recover quickly.

There are a number of other things in game that the player can't do that NPCs can.  For example, field multiple <Redacted> capitals.  In addition, NPC fleets don't spend credits or supplies, or have other player facing issues.  Similarly, there are things the player can do which NPCs can't.  Like settle new world or even have their worlds grow.   Which already makes the player faction completely unlike a pre-existing faction.

There are a number of factions which don't have size 7 or 8 worlds.  Tri-tachyon maxes at 6, Pirates, Independents and Pathers cap at size 5.  So a newly settled player faction caps out like some of the smaller factions already present.  If the player can grow a size 8 world over the course of decades, why shouldn't Tri-tachyon also be able to do so?  That of course adds more mechanics and late game issues to balance.

Given the easy to modify nature of the game, I think as a core vanilla limit, size 6 is fine, and if someone wants their "Long war" mod that lets you play with interesting game play for decades and eventually become as large as the Hegemony, then the subset of players interested in it will grab that mod.  Presumably Alex can make that number easy to change, and given the fact NPC worlds larger exist, should work naturally.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 20, 2020, 11:00:08 AM
With regards to the population cap, I don't think the argument 'the player should be able to do whatever they want' holds water. There's a 10^10 cap in the current game. The idea that you put a cap on growth at some reasonable limit so the player doesn't feel obligated to expand forever is already a part of the game and I've never seen anyone complain about it.

I can understand people who want to be able do whatever the AI does, but that's also not a requirement, it's a preference.

It makes no gameplay difference where the cap is set, since the factions and core are static/scripted so that they can be balanced with whatever the player is allowed to do. Colony size has no significance other than income in the current game, and since income can be independently tuned, it's actually just a matter of 'feeling' which is totally subjective. As long as the rest of the gameplay is balanced, it really doesn't matter to me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Phrosperatus on October 20, 2020, 11:19:10 AM
Hi!
I'm new here and to the game.
I wish to ask, is there a way to make the "Shift" key sticky or toggleable in combat so I wouldn't have to keep holding it down?
Thank you for the responses in advance.

Very exciting news, and interesting discussions.
Glad to be a part of it.
Thank you for developing StarSector.
It is truly amazing.

English is not my native language. I apologize.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: dacian on October 20, 2020, 11:19:20 AM
That is why I have not seriously attempted the mad quest of full sector colonization yet, although I did grind Ordos in red systems for about forty-something alpha cores, just to see what kind of grinding I would need to do to get the cores needed to colonize everything, and to find what can kill Radiants the least painfully.
Can you please tell us what were your finds for optimally killing Radiants? I've been using Drover-filled with Sparks spam ... Am I far from it?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 20, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

I wish to ask, is there a way to make the "Shift" key sticky or toggleable in combat so I wouldn't have to keep holding it down?
Thank you for the responses in advance.


I suggested this a few weeks ago and in the short discussion that followed we came to the conclusion that it might be better to make an extra keybinding for it (like caps lock).
An option (checkbox in the menu) to choose wether you want to hold or toggle shift is good enough for most use cases though.

Anyway the other suggestion i made in that post is now part of the patch notes so i have good hopes we might get this one as well ;)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 11:59:16 AM
I want big colonies mostly for military might (to shut down enemy expeditions while I am away) and to rebuild a bigger and better Domain.  I do not care about trade income in the long run because it will be zero after a total core kill (which I need to do if I plan to colonize everything or if I am simply sick of babysitting everyone).

Quote
Can you please tell us what were your finds for optimally killing Radiants?
I did not say I found anything better than what is already known by others.  If anything, I had a sub-optimal character with points sunk into colony skills (that became obsolete after I farmed more than a few alpha cores).  All I wanted is a way to farm cores without losing most of my fleet whenever more than one Radiant attacks - and without Drover and Spark spam since my character was not built for it.

I did not use Drover spam because I did not have Officer Management and carrier skills, and my old computer chugs with massive fighter spam.  At first, I used a mix of capitals, Dooms, and carriers.  Later, I used Paragon spam.

Quote
There are a number of factions which don't have size 7 or 8 worlds.  Tri-tachyon maxes at 6, Pirates, Independents and Pathers cap at size 5.  So a newly settled player faction caps out like some of the smaller factions already present.  If the player can grow a size 8 world over the course of decades, why shouldn't Tri-tachyon also be able to do so?  That of course adds more mechanics and late game issues to balance.
Tri-Tachyon is the only major that stops at 6.

My ambition is to match a major faction, preferably the bigger ones.  Indies and pirates do not count.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Phrosperatus on October 20, 2020, 12:07:33 PM

I wish to ask, is there a way to make the "Shift" key sticky or toggleable in combat so I wouldn't have to keep holding it down?
Thank you for the responses in advance.


I suggested this a few weeks ago and in the short discussion that followed we came to the conclusion that it might be better to make an extra keybinding for it (like caps lock).
An option (checkbox in the menu) to choose wether you want to hold or toggle shift is good enough for most use cases though.

Anyway the other suggestion i made in that post is now part of the patch notes so i have good hopes we might get this one as well ;)

Hi!
Thanks for your response. If i could choose, I would wish to keep the way it is, and have another keybinding for the toggle. So Shift would be the same as it was for shorter combats, etc, and another keybind like what you suggested, CapsLock, for longer combats.

If the developer reads this, thank you for considering our suggestion, and for developing StarSector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2020, 12:41:41 PM
Regarding the "new, very rare, and powerful enemy:"

Of course, you can't say much but will this enemy type just be roaming about in the wild or will there be specific steps that have to take place to trigger them? On the one hand, I would a "There be dragons" part of the map or some kind of event that keeps the player humble while on the other hand, I would hate for a new player to get stomped prematurely. At least the [REDACTED] have warning beacons.

Yes.

(... sorry! :))

Also, if current threats are "a couple of Lashers/Enforcers" and what is planned is "the whole Hegemony," (even withe hyperbole)...that sounds both terrifying and exciting. I have my theories but I do hope that the player isn't the only one invested in stopping the existential threat.

Yeah, just... :-X


as expected

Apologies for being so predictable :)



Will planets with disruoted spaceports still generate procurement missions? The "Donn raid-and-trait" strategy makes getting credits too easy.

Keep in mind that disrupting a spaceport causes much less of a penalty to accessibility now.



Just as it is with XP currently, which really peters out above level 70 if you have levels unlocked

(I mean, same exacty deal here, if you super want to, you can change the size limit.)



The idea is to stop people from forcing themselves into gameplay that is not fun, because they feel they have to play "optimally" or "max out everything". If just some people who really want to hang around in a save for 50 years were to see the colonies grow to size 7, that would not be a problem. But if people hang around in the game, actually bored out of their mind, just to see that number change from 6 to 7, that's bad game design.

Exactly this, yes!



Personally, I feel like capping colony size is just a solution looking for a problem. Essentially, the only problems of large Colony sizes that I can see, are the lore conflict, the lack of "realism", and the thematic issues, all things you've previously said should move out of the way for game mechanics. Those three things could be more easily 'fixed' just by reducing the population number of each colony size, or giving certain core worlds specific conditions that, for lore-reasons just state they have larger populations than what their size would otherwise state.

Let's flip that around: most of the concern regarding colony size seems to be motivated by "feel", not mechnical issues. And there are some mechanical concerns, which are fair, but not directly related to the colony size number being smaller, but rather to the current tuning of some values that might be based off that.

And, something I should've mentioned earlier, but frankly it slipped my mind - one of the reasons for smaller colonies is indeed mechanical. You can then have items that have a significant impact, and don't end up with those same items on size-9 colonies that completely overwhelm anything the core has. Basically, "items to specialize + smaller colonies" is more interesting than just "bigger colonies", and "items to specialize + bigger colonies" is not a great mix because it limits what you can do with items, design-wise.



Basically, you are never going to get 'high-hazard small mining colonies' organically. Unless you hamfist it in some way, it's just not happening. It just doesn't work with the mechanics. The only option I can think of is either a fundamental change to the mining system so that more population doesn't improve goods produced, a massive increase to mining profitability just for having the industry, or effectively some kind of 'mining colony' button that limits the colony growth, but gives massive bonuses to accessibility and production (and either prevents or doesn't benefit volatiles, farming, refineries, etc).

I mean, you're pointing out several reasonable ways to do it, right after saying it can't be done :) There are more things that could be done, too.


As for requiring items to bring income up to pre-nerf, or rather '0.95' levels, once again, it feels more like a solution looking for a problem. While currently colonies can quickly make money a non-issue, that's not because they're unbalanced but because the game has a fundamental lack of resource sinks in end game.

Agree about the endgame; as I mentioned, colonies are a tool without a task right now; while I have some fairly specific ideas about their final role, right now there isn't anything. So the focus on optimizing colonies - while understandable right now - is also not something I'm super concerned about, if that makes sense.

Regarding items; see above. Their goal isn't to bring colonies back up to previous production levels (though they do do that), but to introduce more variety to playthroughs and more considerations for where to colonize.


A fundament problem with the system is that there will always be a 'best' skill out of every choice. You can get those skills infinitely close, but you can never truly make them equal. Because of this, there will always be a 'best' build, and players will always gravitate towards it.

To give an example, let's take that navigation skill example. The one that increases overall speed is better. Why? Because it's an overall speed boost, vs making up for a penalty. I can just limit the times when I need to 'slow-move', which I will be used to anyway beforehand. In contrast, the slow-move buff only helps in situations that are sub-optimal to begin with, and no matter how fast you go when slow-moving, I assume it's never going to overtake someone going normal speed. The choice is between lessening a penalty that happens when you essentially screw up positioning in the map, or buffing everything else. It's especially egregious because neither really defines your gameplay, it's not a meaningful choice, it's a nobrainer.

If you really, absolutely, want to provoke different builds, in my opinion, the only real option is to make it so either each choice has nothing to do with each other, or fundamentally changes the way you play the game.

Again, I generally agree! Skills are indeed mostly paired in an apples/oranges way, for the reasons you describe. The exceptions are usually skills that would scale multiplicatively with each other to where you're feel forced to take both of them, and even then it's not a straight number-crunching to see what's better.

Regarding navigation/sensors, it's also an apples/oranges thing; I don't think the way you're looking at it is entirely correct. E.G. being able to go *significantly* faster while going dark isn't making up for a penalty - rather, it's making the "sneaking around" playstyle a lot better. And there are lots of things you can do sneaking around - from salaging in REDACTED systems, to smuggling, to performing stealth raids on core worlds, to doing contact missions. Even just exploring, if you can do an Active Sensor Burst (which makes you "move slowly" now), the Sensors skill may be worth more than navigation in terms of speed if you're exploring a new system, for example. And the Sensors skill also gives a bonus to sensor range/reduction of the sensor profile, making it even better for sneaking around.


What's more, it's more than likely, that the industry/general/utility skills will be, once again prioritized over the combat skills because as always, generally speaking, it's not the player's combat performance that matters most. That's... one more thing that's sort of fundamental to the game as well.

I think that's something that seems like it's numerically correct but actually generally isn't, not if your personal piloting is reasonably good. Even in the currently-out version, combat skills are I think way better than common wisdom gives them credit for. In the next release, with Elite skills, you'll have even more personal impact (compared to an officer which will have very limited access to Elite skills). Plus, every aptitude but leadership has some (thematic to the aptitude) combat skills, so you'd pick some up regardless.


Regardless, I hope my comments don't come off as... pushy or demanding. I believe that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to accomplish. It's just that I think the way you're going about it won't get the results you want. While I certainly have my own desires for what I would 'like' from the game and perhaps I'm projecting my own desires onto you, I'm trying to go on what you've said in the past.

In the end, I'm an opinionated person, and as I write things like this, I tend to get defensive as I pick holes in my own comments. Also its been a few days since I've checked the patch notes or followed the conversation, so maybe some of these have been addressed, or are misunderstandings. I apologize in advance if this is the case.

Have a nice day.

No worries! I feel like you're seeing valid problems, but then maybe assuming that I haven't also seen them but instead did, like, the worst possible thing for no reason :) Which, I mean, it's entirely possible/likely that I did miss some things, so I don't mind you bringing these things up! Fortunately, it does seem like the things here *did* get considered. Whether the solutions are adequate etc, time will tell!

Hope you have a nice day, too!



What would force players to sit around for 20-30 ingame years to watch colonies grow from size 6 to size 7? It's not a requirement to unlock the super secret final boss (I'm assuming), all it does is make a few numbers bigger.

Some kind of internal compulsion? I mean, people do the boringest things for achievements etc. I'm not saying *everyone* would feel compelled to do it, but some people certainly would. And even people that wouldn't, seeing something you *can* do and then going "well, that's too boring, I'm not doing *that*" still feels bad! Like, you feel that you've been cut off from some aspect or some power level in the game because you're not willing to waste your time on something boring.


Is it possible to make the move slowly key a toggle on? Maybe by a setting?

Well, if you want to move slowly for a length of time where a toggle is more convenient then holding the key down, then chances are you actually want "Go Dark" instead. Even moving through hyperstorms slowly, for example, you could do that, since no-one's going to stop you for Transponder Crimes in hyperspace...


I think making the Light Needler 7 OP is a mistake. It still won't be useful for ships that want more sustained kinetic pressure, and on ships that can fully utilize the burst like the Sunder or Doom it'll be undercosted. The Railgun nerf is appropriate, though.

FWIW, I've just about come around to making it cost 8 OP.


I really love game devs like you. You give just enough info to make me get really excited about what's next, but you don't give any big spoilers. I really can't wait for the new raiding mechanics and story content!

Also, completly off-topic, but are there any mods that interest you content or gameplay wise?

Thank you! <3

Re: mods - I don't actually play with mods very much. By the time I'd have time to (and they're updated for the new version), there's usually some minor incompatibilities that make it a pain to use with the in-dev version. Plus I'd feel extra-bad about stealing all the ship names if I knew I was doing it ahead of time :)


Given the easy to modify nature of the game, I think as a core vanilla limit, size 6 is fine, and if someone wants their "Long war" mod that lets you play with interesting game play for decades and eventually become as large as the Hegemony, then the subset of players interested in it will grab that mod.  Presumably Alex can make that number easy to change, and given the fact NPC worlds larger exist, should work naturally.

Indeed, and it's trivially modifiable!

It makes no gameplay difference where the cap is set, since the factions and core are static/scripted so that they can be balanced with whatever the player is allowed to do. Colony size has no significance other than income in the current game, and since income can be independently tuned, it's actually just a matter of 'feeling' which is totally subjective.

(Yep!)


Hi!
I'm new here and to the game.
I wish to ask, is there a way to make the "Shift" key sticky or toggleable in combat so I wouldn't have to keep holding it down?
Thank you for the responses in advance.

Very exciting news, and interesting discussions.
Glad to be a part of it.
Thank you for developing StarSector.
It is truly amazing.

English is not my native language. I apologize.

Hi! Not quite, but if you go to gameplay settings (a tab in the "Settings" menu), there's a setting to invert the behavior, so that ships will face the mouse by default, and holding shift will temporarily stop it. Not sure if that'll be useful to you; depends on exactly what you're looking for. (As far as an extra control, well, running a bit short on buttons! Not a fan of using caps lock for things, since it has side effects...)

Happy you're into the game otherwise :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 20, 2020, 01:29:34 PM
What's more, it's more than likely, that the industry/general/utility skills will be, once again prioritized over the combat skills because as always, generally speaking, it's not the player's combat performance that matters most. That's... one more thing that's sort of fundamental to the game as well.
The reason why more people value other skills over combat skills is because there are more people who are bad at combat than who are good. And since combat skills scale with player's skill the most, put two and two together and combat skills are unpopular partially because they really are worth less to some people, and others learned to avoid them, because they used to be worth less to them.
I don't know of any particular point at which it's better to get combat skills than not to, but once you play for some time, it's worth to check and see if you're at that point yet.

I think that's something that seems like it's numerically correct but actually generally isn't, not if your personal piloting is reasonably good. Even in the currently-out version, combat skills are I think way better than common wisdom gives them credit for. In the next release, with Elite skills, you'll have even more personal impact (compared to an officer which will have very limited access to Elite skills). Plus, every aptitude but leadership has some (thematic to the aptitude) combat skills, so you'd pick some up regardless.
Will new combat skills' bonuses be overall greater, than current combat skills? You get more locked in in the next update, so I hope so.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Phrosperatus on October 20, 2020, 01:48:00 PM
Hi!
I'm new here and to the game.
I wish to ask, is there a way to make the "Shift" key sticky or toggleable in combat so I wouldn't have to keep holding it down?
Thank you for the responses in advance.

Very exciting news, and interesting discussions.
Glad to be a part of it.
Thank you for developing StarSector.
It is truly amazing.

English is not my native language. I apologize.

Hi! Not quite, but if you go to gameplay settings (a tab in the "Settings" menu), there's a setting to invert the behavior, so that ships will face the mouse by default, and holding shift will temporarily stop it. Not sure if that'll be useful to you; depends on exactly what you're looking for. (As far as an extra control, well, running a bit short on buttons! Not a fan of using caps lock for things, since it has side effects...)

Happy you're into the game otherwise :)
Hi!
Thank you for your response.
A new button for toggling the function temporarily would be the option i wish to be implemented. Making it an optional toggleable function would be also really helpful.
I'm so glad you already implemented bindable modifier keys (Shift, CTRL, Alt, example Shift+D, etc). Thank you for that.
May you please consider implementing combinations. For example by default C is decelerate.
I wish to use W+S or A+D or E+D or Q+A key combinations which otherwise doesn't really make sense to be used / be pressed / holded down together for that.
I'm sorry if I bothered you with these requests and thank you for considering implementing any of these and again for developing StarSector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 20, 2020, 02:08:00 PM
The reason why more people value other skills over combat skills is because there are more people who are bad at combat than who are good. And since combat skills scale with player's skill the most, put two and two together and combat skills are unpopular partially because they really are worth less to some people, and others learned to avoid them, because they used to be worth less to them. I don't know of any particular point at which it's better to get combat skills than not to, but once you play for some time, it's worth to check and see if you're at that point yet.

Going to second this. I know of numerous players that get into combat and put the flagship on autopilot because they don't feel like they can do better. To the degree that combat skills can become a crutch if your actual skill level isn't great, they can also become "irrelevant" if you can't feel their effects first-hand. Combat skills are very much a "layered" thing: one skill might not ever feel like much but the cumulative effects do really start to add up. Whenever I start a new run, I can immediately tell that my ship is slower, less accurate, does less damage, takes more damage, and has a lot less room for error. I can still leverage opportunities and get good positioning but skills make my piloting drastically more effective.

Early on, I'm almost 100% on combat skills. I fight bounties for the most part so while fleets are small, your flagship has a disproportionate effect on battles and I can go from taking on 2-3x DP worth of enemy ships to 5x pretty quickly (and then beyond). I don't fault anyone for doing things differently but that's where I tend to go get the most bang-for-my-buck.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 02:36:08 PM
In the current release, the combat skills I am most interested in are not in the Combat tree, but in Leadership (Fleet Logistics, Coordinated Maneuvers, and maybe Fighter Doctrine... oh, and Officer Management) and Technology (Gunnery Implants, Power Grid Modulation, Electronic Warfare, and especially Loadout Design), and that competes with Navigation.  By the time I get all of that, I am already spent more or less half of all of the skill points I will ever get (thank dead aptitudes).

Later, I get Combat Endurance, Helmsmanship, and whatever boosts shields in Combat.  Afterwards, it is decision paralysis, especially during the games I grabbed Industry for colony skills (because I wanted a big empire like Hegemony too).  I would like the armor skills, but I cannot get everything.  If I played another game before 0.95, I would definitely grab Impact Mitigation 1 (which I did not previously).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 20, 2020, 02:45:12 PM
  • Flagging intel as "important" will no longer prevent it from being removed when it expires

So this one's a mixed bag. Something like an incoming pirate raid? Yeah, take that off the list when I've killed it, I don't need that sticking around. Something like a 'survey this research station' mission that I tagged as important so I don't have to keep separate outside-the-game notes? No, I actually don't want that to expire when the mission's no longer being offered; I would very much like the information that "There is a research station in this system" to be something that sticks around.

RE: All the Onslaught discussions.
So the interesting thing here that I noticed recently is that the Onslaught's base flux dissipation is the same as the Dominator's base flux dissipation. Which does, looking at it, neatly explain why I'm happy to use Dominators, but find Onslaughts to be under-fluxed and overall just relatively poor ships for their price tag.

And on a completely un-related note, I'd like to bring this suggestion thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15118.0) back to Alex' attention; it would be very useful for modders to have some access to how ships get drawn in non-combat / non-refit contexts.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2020, 03:24:14 PM
The reason why more people value other skills over combat skills is because there are more people who are bad at combat than who are good. And since combat skills scale with player's skill the most, put two and two together and combat skills are unpopular partially because they really are worth less to some people, and others learned to avoid them, because they used to be worth less to them.
I don't know of any particular point at which it's better to get combat skills than not to, but once you play for some time, it's worth to check and see if you're at that point yet.

I think that's a really nice way of putting it.

Will new combat skills' bonuses be overall greater, than current combat skills? You get more locked in in the next update, so I hope so.

Very roughly in the same ballpark, with some outliers, and some greater specialization which would allow for greater power in specific tactical contexts. Not sure what you mean by "more locked in", could you clarify? My initial though is you'd be less locked in due to being able to re-spec, so you must mean something else. Ah - maybe the fact that you have to go up the aptitude to get the higher-tier skills? Those are indeed more powerful; the Combat aptitude included.

A new button for toggling the function temporarily would be the option i wish to be implemented. Making it an optional toggleable function would be also really helpful.

Yeah, I understand what you mean!

May you please consider implementing combinations. For example by default C is decelerate.
I wish to use W+S or A+D or E+D or Q+A key combinations which otherwise doesn't really make sense to be used / be pressed / holded down together for that.
I'm sorry if I bothered you with these requests and thank you for considering implementing any of these and again for developing StarSector.

I don't think that would work very well - it's pretty complicated, but also, most keyboards have a hardware limit on the number of nearby keys that they can registered as "pressed" at the same time. So, for example, if you're holding W+S, presses of Q, A, E, D, and some (but not all!) other nearby keys will not register. Again, this is a hardware thing; those input events just won't get generated. So requiring additional key presses like that is asking for trouble.



So this one's a mixed bag. Something like an incoming pirate raid? Yeah, take that off the list when I've killed it, I don't need that sticking around. Something like a 'survey this research station' mission that I tagged as important so I don't have to keep separate outside-the-game notes? No, I actually don't want that to expire when the mission's no longer being offered; I would very much like the information that "There is a research station in this system" to be something that sticks around.

Ah, that's a fair point. Hopefully when/if I get to adding custom map tokens, that'd be alleviated...

RE: All the Onslaught discussions.
So the interesting thing here that I noticed recently is that the Onslaught's base flux dissipation is the same as the Dominator's base flux dissipation. Which does, looking at it, neatly explain why I'm happy to use Dominators, but find Onslaughts to be under-fluxed and overall just relatively poor ships for their price tag.

Hmm? The Dominator is 450, and the Onslaught is 600. Is that not what you're seeing in 0.9.1a? In other words, did I buff that aspect of it and forget about it?

And on a completely un-related note, I'd like to bring this suggestion thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15118.0) back to Alex' attention; it would be very useful for modders to have some access to how ships get drawn in non-combat / non-refit contexts.

I'll have another look when I get a chance! What I said back then still stands, really - it's a tricky thing to expose in a good way.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 20, 2020, 03:27:46 PM
Regarding combat skills: the devil is in the details. We honestly won't know how the new skill system matches up until we see it. As with the current system, autopilot players see little benefit to combat skills as an officer in the same ship is a better deal. As player skill grows, so does combat skills' impacts.

In the current version the first skills I take are nearly always combat skills even if I'm not going for a full combat build, because the amplification they give to the early game, where the player's flagship is the (in some cases vast) majority of fleet power, it quite large for a modest investment. I can see myself doing the same thing in a new system.

Details that are about the current system and therefor obsolete:
Spoiler
6 skill points (with 2 in the aptitude, 2 in target analysis, 2 in defensive systems) gives anadvantage in the "flux war" of getting the enemy's shield down before the player's own goes down: against a 'mirror' enemy, they will max their shield out when the player is only at 70%. Not to mention the level 1 requirement skills:-25% shield flux is a nice bonus to offensive flux (25 flux on a Hammerhead, equivalent when shields are up to Power Grid Modulation 3 for a level 1 skill), and +50% damage to enemy weapons/engines is nice. For 2 more points: Impact mitigation 1 doubles or more the effective hull hitpoints of a ship, and advanced countermeasures combined with it reduces almost every kinetic weapon to minimum damage.

There are a few other good level 1/2 skills to pick up later, like evasive action 1 and impact mitigation 2 on cruisers/capitals, perhaps combat endurance 1 if the fleet is slow killing for endgame fights, but many of the other best skills are in tier 3 and "gated" behind less essential (but still useful) tier 1 and 2 skills, so there is a gap above 6-10 invested combat points where the marginal return on investment is low, before it shoots up again for the best skills.

For ballistic ships, Gunnery Implants 1 is a game changer (range is also great at tier 3, but recoil reduction on some weapons is massive). Of all the technology skills, I rank this one only behind Electronic Warfare 1 in terms of value for ships that use weapons with spread, and consider those 2 + 1 in the aptitude the required Tech skill investment in otherwise 'no tech' runs.

[close]
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 20, 2020, 03:37:42 PM
Hmm? The Dominator is 450, and the Onslaught is 600. Is that not what you're seeing in 0.9.1a? In other words, did I buff that aspect of it and forget about it?
...Huh. Yup, looks like I goofed somehow, those are definitely the correct values. Not sure where I got that notion from, then.

I still find the Dominator to more or less work, and the Onslaught more or less not work. Maybe I'd been looking at dissipation available per weapon slot or something? Though that'd generate less 'equal' results and more 'the Dominator has more flux available per weapon'...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 20, 2020, 03:46:12 PM
Do combat skills really make that much of a difference ???? They never seemed worth it to me, at least on paper, over the skill that get me a faster, cheaper, better, more resourceful, etc., etc., fleet and 10 officers to cover all my combat skill needs. One of the things I was actually hoping for in the next patch was logistics officers, people that can get the non-combat skills and leave me free to focus on combat without sacrificing my fleet's abilities, logistics profile and/or - somewhat importantly - combat performance. Fleet Logistics 3, Fighter Doctrine, Loadout Design, all useful skills that no officer in the game can cover for me...

Of course with all the changes coming I've no idea of that idea is still relevant - or whether it was even relevant in the first place, apparently - so we'll just have to see.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2020, 04:47:41 PM
Hmm? The Dominator is 450, and the Onslaught is 600. Is that not what you're seeing in 0.9.1a? In other words, did I buff that aspect of it and forget about it?
...Huh. Yup, looks like I goofed somehow, those are definitely the correct values. Not sure where I got that notion from, then.

Ah, whew. I wonder if maybe increasing the efficiency of the TPC slightly might not help It's not *bad* at 0.8, but it's still energy damage on an otherwise-ballistic ship, so I wonder if .6 might not be more appropriate. That would bring it almost to the level of kinetc/HE vs their specialized targets, though...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 05:09:11 PM
Even with 0.8 efficiency, there are times I wish I can rip out TPCs on AI Onslaughts because they love to fire the whole clip and be near max flux after emptying both TPCs.  (It is more tolerable if TPCs are alternating.)  I do not consider Expanded Magazines on Onslaught because AI is too trigger-happy with TPCs.  And they fire them while firing the rest of the guns, and it is hard enough trying to not exceed dissipation too much.

More efficient TPCs would be useful to mitigate trigger-happy AI.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AsterPiano on October 20, 2020, 05:14:46 PM
My initial though is you'd be less locked in due to being able to re-spec

Wait, you're going to be able to re-spec in the next update!? Did I misread? Did I miss/forget some patch note or blog post?
(If you can, that sounds pretty nice even if it takes story points to do it)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ProfessionalHuman on October 20, 2020, 05:16:08 PM
@ ProfessionalHuman: Welcome to the forum! The control scheme you are proposing has actually been tried early on, but was found to be disorienting. You can read more here, if you like: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8643.0 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8643.0)
So, after reading http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8643.0 and watching some examples of games that use this approach i came to a conclusion that fixing camera to a ship actually doesn't work as well as i thouth. Thanks for providing a link to that discussion.

But there is one thing that wasn't mentioned in that discussion. As i observed, when game chooses in wich direction to propell the ship it takes into account direction to where its nose pointing. What if there was a button that removes ships nose direction from equation? So then if i press "A" ship will always strafe to the left, if i press "D" ship will always strafe to the right, and so on. That could also make piloting broadside ships easier.

If that was changed and the keys mean "move north/south/west/east" instead then how do you see that working when your ship is pointed diagonally? Should the ship just half move forward/half strafe? Changing this would mean you can just move into 8 directions too.
I assume that technically the ship will "just move" in desired direction. On screen you of course will see that both side and main engines are firing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 05:18:39 PM
Re-spec is in the July 2019 blog post.  It costs a story point to re-spec.

Quote
A few skills are permanent and can’t be reassigned; these are ones with effects that would either leave the game in an invalid state if the player had the skill and subsequently didn’t, or just ones that make it optimal to get the skill, use it, and then refund it.
I like to know how many such perma-skills are there.  Would like to know if the skill I want is permanent before I spend a point on it.  No fun stepping on a landmine by trying to re-spec the skill away only to learn "too late, you can't".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bowman on October 20, 2020, 05:38:40 PM
It's odd to me that colony max size being changed is such a strong discussion point.

First of all, the patchnotes themselves mentioned it's in the configs. You can literally just change the number back to 10. I can understand the desire for it to be inherently supported (as it has ramifications in other systems) and also simply not wanting to remember to edit the config whenever you install the game or what-have-you, but even then it doesn't seem like this should be that big a deal. I would agree, though, that it would be cooler if there were special missions like linking a cryosleeper to a single planet in order to increase it past size 6, but if it's dev time for that versus the actual story.. I think I'd prefer the story? Particularly given that can come later, or from mods, anyway.

On top of that, while we obviously don't have the exacts, from what Alex has said and the patchnotes it seems to me colonies aren't really expected to be reduced in strength compared to the previous top-tier. In fact, it sounds like they may have gone up if you find the right "nanoforge-esque" item. I know for a fact he mentioned one of them "significantly" increases patrol fleet size. Even in the case that their strength does go down, I imagine all the other system changes have shifted what is necessary for defense- though whether that's up or down I've no idea. Once playtesting comes around I imagine he'll tweak the numbers however necessary- though the comments will make that decision more informed, of course.

The way I see it, this is more like renaming the top tier from 10 to 6, simply because the number better fits the numbers in the rest of the game. It's perhaps like if onslaught had 400 LY of fuel range or something equally ridiculous and he went in and realized "oh, that's not really the same magnitude as anything else let's just fix that- clearly should only be 40, just put an extra zero on accident". Not the best example but hopefully the idea is clear.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 20, 2020, 05:52:32 PM
Do combat skills really make that much of a difference ????

As stated, in the beginning your flagship is most of your fleet's firepower. In the late game, a capital flagship can easily be 1/3 of your DP on the field, so Combat skills remain very powerful.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hiruma Kai on October 20, 2020, 06:02:41 PM
Ah, whew. I wonder if maybe increasing the efficiency of the TPC slightly might not help It's not *bad* at 0.8, but it's still energy damage on an otherwise-ballistic ship, so I wonder if .6 might not be more appropriate. That would bring it almost to the level of kinetc/HE vs their specialized targets, though...

I'll point out, you can't swap out the TPC for their specialized variants (kinetic/HE).  They also can't be acquired in any other way than on an Onslaught.  So the question of TPC efficiency relative to kinetic and high explosive weapons is irrelevant.  There's no substitution or decision to be made.  Its not like you get to pick TPC over a Storm Needler or a Hellbore cannon.  TPC stats have to be considered in combination with the Onslaught itself.  The question is, does their current efficiency make the Onslaught too strong, too weak, or just right? 

Given the Onslaught has 5 large weapon mounts on a base 600 flux budget, it really favors multiple low flux cost, high efficiency, low damage weapons.  TPCs as 20 clip weapons at 200 flux per shot are not low flux cost weapons.  8000 flux in 4 seconds is a little under half base flux pool, and takes ~13 seconds to dissipate at base dissipation.  Its really painful to watch when half the shots miss because the target ship is too small for both to hit.  If you don't think 0.6 efficiency will break the balance of the ship itself, I'd suggest tweaking it to 0.6 and see how it plays out in the 0.95 release.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2020, 06:12:34 PM
But there is one thing that wasn't mentioned in that discussion. As i observed, when game chooses in wich direction to propell the ship it takes into account direction to where its nose pointing. What if there was a button that removes ships nose direction from equation? So then if i press "A" ship will always strafe to the left, if i press "D" ship will always strafe to the right, and so on. That could also make piloting broadside ships easier.

If that was changed and the keys mean "move north/south/west/east" instead then how do you see that working when your ship is pointed diagonally? Should the ship just half move forward/half strafe? Changing this would mean you can just move into 8 directions too.
I assume that technically the ship will "just move" in desired direction. On screen you of course will see that both side and main engines are firing.

I tried that at one point, actually! The problem is, it's hard to - regardless of the ship's facing - e.g. make it move "up the screen" with some combination of valid ship engine control inputs, especially considering that a ship's acceleration values are different depending on whether it's strafing, backing off, or accelerating forward. Making it work in a pleasing way would require "cheating", basically - having it move in a way that couldn't be achieved with how the ship's engine works in-game. And even then, I don't think it's a great fit for this game, since you'd be limited to 8 directions, which is... I think it's just too arcade-like for how the game plays.


I like to know how many such perma-skills are there.  Would like to know if the skill I want is permanent before I spend a point on it.  No fun stepping on a landmine by trying to re-spec the skill away only to learn "too late, you can't".

Off the top of my head, I think maybe 4? It tells you which skills are permanent, of course!


I'll point out, you can't swap out the TPC for their specialized variants (kinetic/HE).  They also can't be acquired in any other way than on an Onslaught.  So the question of TPC efficiency relative to kinetic and high explosive weapons is irrelevant.  There's no substitution or decision to be made.  Its not like you get to pick TPC over a Storm Needler or a Hellbore cannon.  TPC stats have to be considered in combination with the Onslaught itself.  The question is, does their current efficiency make the Onslaught too strong, too weak, or just right? 

Given the Onslaught has 5 large weapon mounts on a base 600 flux budget, it really favors multiple low flux cost, high efficiency, low damage weapons.  TPCs as 20 clip weapons at 200 flux per shot are not low flux cost weapons.  8000 flux in 4 seconds is a little under half base flux pool, and takes ~13 seconds to dissipate at base dissipation.  Its really painful to watch when half the shots miss because the target ship is too small for both to hit.  If you don't think 0.6 efficiency will break the balance of the ship itself, I'd suggest tweaking it to 0.6 and see how it plays out in the 0.95 release.

Right, yeah - what I meant is that it might feel weird for the Onslaught to have the most efficient energy weapon in the game, so it's not really a mechanical concern - as you say, mechanics-wise, it's a non-issue. And, really, this *is* a point where mechanics beat feel pretty clearly. And the point about it missing a lot is a sound one.

Ah, why not - let's give this a try; set it to 150/shot.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 20, 2020, 06:53:07 PM
Oh, since the Onslaught is being discussed again, and since that's one of the ships for which it would be the most useful, i just remembered.

Will we be able to go beyond 5 weapon groups next patch? I've seen it being suggested and discussed a couple of times but can't remember if you (Alex) weighed in on it or not, and if so what your opinion on it was.
Does seem like something that might easily have slipped the patch notes even you implemented it.

Do combat skills really make that much of a difference ???? They never seemed worth it to me, at least on paper, over the skill that get me a faster, cheaper, better, more resourceful, etc., etc. <snip>

Individually they may not seem that strong (well, some of them are) but if you take a bunch together it really adds up. Or in the case that there's really good synergy multiplies might be the better word.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bowman on October 20, 2020, 06:57:04 PM
Out of curiosity, are there any new sindrian diktat variants (Or faction-specific variants in general)?

I half expect a simple  :-X tbh but might as well ask  ::)

The anticipation is palpable for .95

Edit: I second the 5+ weapon slots question
It's mainly useful for organization but is also nice for flux management with autofire.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 07:09:08 PM
Right, yeah - what I meant is that it might feel weird for the Onslaught to have the most efficient energy weapon in the game, so it's not really a mechanical concern - as you say, mechanics-wise, it's a non-issue. And, really, this *is* a point where mechanics beat feel pretty clearly. And the point about it missing a lot is a sound one.

Ah, why not - let's give this a try; set it to 150/shot.
TPCs also have the most range of any hard-flux energy (mount) weapon by far.  1000 beats 700.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Phrosperatus on October 20, 2020, 07:10:26 PM
A new button for toggling the function temporarily would be the option i wish to be implemented. Making it an optional toggleable function would be also really helpful.

Yeah, I understand what you mean!

May you please consider implementing combinations. For example by default C is decelerate.
I wish to use W+S or A+D or E+D or Q+A key combinations which otherwise doesn't really make sense to be used / be pressed / holded down together for that.
I'm sorry if I bothered you with these requests and thank you for considering implementing any of these and again for developing StarSector.

I don't think that would work very well - it's pretty complicated, but also, most keyboards have a hardware limit on the number of nearby keys that they can registered as "pressed" at the same time. So, for example, if you're holding W+S, presses of Q, A, E, D, and some (but not all!) other nearby keys will not register. Again, this is a hardware thing; those input events just won't get generated. So requiring additional key presses like that is asking for trouble.
Thank you for your responses and sharing your thoughts on the matter and sorry again for these requests.
I really like the controls of the ship. Combat is fun.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 20, 2020, 07:22:53 PM
Will we be able to go beyond 5 weapon groups next patch? I've seen it being suggested and discussed a couple of times but can't remember if you (Alex) weighed in on it or not, and if so what your opinion on it was.
Does seem like something that might easily have slipped the patch notes even you implemented it.

Nope! It's just enough of a pain to do that I'm hesitant to "just do it".

Out of curiosity, are there any new sindrian diktat variants (Or faction-specific variants in general)?

I half expect a simple  :-X tbh but might as well ask  ::)

Hmm, definitely not for the Diktat (though that's something we talked about at some point internally, I think), and not that I can recall for other faction-specific variants.

TPCs also have the most range of any hard-flux energy (mount) weapon by far.  1000 beats 700.

Yeah, good point there.


Thank you for your responses and sharing your thoughts on the matter and sorry again for these requests.
I really like the controls of the ship. Combat is fun.

No worries about the requests! Sorry I'm saying "no" all the time :)

Happy you're enjoying the game, though!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 20, 2020, 07:49:57 PM
I think you have to be very careful about buffing TPC efficiency. It hits quite hard against armor/hull so you kinda have to block with shields unlike kinetics with similar efficiency. Maybe there's a balance point somewhere in there though. I think a big part of the problem is actually the range. TPC outranges kinetics so the onslaught has often already spent half its flux pool on TPCs before it can even use the kinetics that might compensate for its weaker flux stats.

edit:
Maybe reducing clip size might be a buff. Even like 5 shot burst that recharges every couple seconds rather than a big magazine that refills over time.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 20, 2020, 07:54:58 PM
I think you have to be very careful about buffing TPC efficiency. It hits quite hard against armor/hull so you kinda have to block with shields unlike kinetics with similar efficiency. Maybe there's a balance point somewhere in there though. I think a big part of the problem is actually the range. TPC outranges kinetics so the onslaught has often already spent half its flux pool on TPCs before it can even use the kinetics that might compensate for its weaker flux stats.
Normally true, but not if Onslaught uses Gauss Cannon.  I have used Gauss Cannon a few times on Onslaught (during mid-game) for long-range assault.

That said, AI being too trigger-happy with TPCs is annoying.

I do not mind TPCs being efficient.  Trying to fill mounts with good weapons is hard enough even without TPCs interfering.  I would love to put HAG or better on Onslaught but it costs too much flux for comfort.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on October 20, 2020, 08:40:31 PM
Onslaught needs all the help it can get in light of various other ship buffs that have come with time. If not better TPC or flux tweaks then slap another 250 armor on it to bring her up to 2,000. I was sad to see that only the Enforcer got buffs—I was expecting to see the Dominator and Onslaught on there too, Alex bringing the three low-tech boys up to par...

13 new super weapons though for some end game threat—that has me pretty stoked! To make use of 13 new weapons you'd probably need at least 4 brand new ships! Hoorah!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 20, 2020, 08:58:36 PM
How does the AI act with Breach pods so far?
Alex, please put 1 Locust, 2 medium Breach, 3 small Sabot on a Gryphon and have it fight an Apogee, both on autopilot
What is the order of Gryphon's weapons usage?

Please make Thumper cost 7 OP.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 20, 2020, 09:39:39 PM
With regards to the TPCs: my main issue is that the AI will often fire the whole battery when only 1 of the guns is on target. Whenever that happens, the effective flux per shot doubles. IIRC there have been tweaks to firing logic so if thats no longer the case the weapons would be much better.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on October 20, 2020, 10:22:22 PM
The easy fix for that, for player builds, is to put the TPC firing group on Alternating. That should probably happen to vanilla variants as well.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on October 20, 2020, 10:45:19 PM
The easy fix for that, for player builds, is to put the TPC firing group on Alternating. That should probably happen to vanilla variants as well.

Alternating does nothing. TPCs are too rapid firing to try adjusting aim every single shot.

Putting them into separate groups and toggling autofire to use them works, but also has drawbacks:
- it's awkward compared to manual fire.
- you are left with only 3 remaining weapon groups, which is sub-optimal. Basically PD, Missiles and everything else. No fine flux management or manual control for most weapons possible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Schwartz on October 20, 2020, 11:00:44 PM
TPCs don't need a buff - just loosen their inner firing angle a bit so we don't have to hit with one TPC and miss with the other. Easy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 20, 2020, 11:14:22 PM
TPCs don't need a buff - just loosen their inner firing angle a bit so we don't have to hit with one TPC and miss with the other. Easy.
Nah I like Alex's approach more. Making them hit closer to each other would be very bad for smaller ships. I think the whole point of those guns is to fire at massive targets and ravage everything without spending too much flux. I don't think they're supposed to be sniper weapons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ANGRYABOUTELVES on October 20, 2020, 11:29:37 PM
The easy fix for that, for player builds, is to put the TPC firing group on Alternating. That should probably happen to vanilla variants as well.
Alternating does nothing. TPCs are too rapid firing to try adjusting aim every single shot.
The AI can do it. Maybe I should have been more specific and said "player builds for AI use".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on October 21, 2020, 12:57:58 AM
@Alex
Any words about that terrible tariffs?
Maybe make them scale down based on reputation and commission?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 21, 2020, 02:22:59 AM
@Alex
Any words about that terrible tariffs?
Maybe make them scale down based on reputation and commission?
Yes please!

As well as increasing when your rep goes below zero.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 21, 2020, 03:15:56 AM
Will we be able to go beyond 5 weapon groups next patch? I've seen it being suggested and discussed a couple of times but can't remember if you (Alex) weighed in on it or not, and if so what your opinion on it was.
Does seem like something that might easily have slipped the patch notes even you implemented it.

Nope! It's just enough of a pain to do that I'm hesitant to "just do it".

<snip>

Ah too bad. Seemed like something that might be relatively simple from my layman perspective. Then again i guess it would tie into quite a lot of different things including AI logic.

Oh well, i'm a lazy pilot in this game anyway so it won't make too much difference for the ships i personally fly. And i guess the cases where it might really be beneficial for an AI loadout are niche enough that it's not worth a lot of development time and effort either.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 21, 2020, 03:29:38 AM
Do combat skills really make that much of a difference ???? They never seemed worth it to me, at least on paper, over the skill that get me a faster, cheaper, better, more resourceful, etc., etc., fleet and 10 officers to cover all my combat skill needs. One of the things I was actually hoping for in the next patch was logistics officers, people that can get the non-combat skills and leave me free to focus on combat without sacrificing my fleet's abilities, logistics profile and/or - somewhat importantly - combat performance. Fleet Logistics 3, Fighter Doctrine, Loadout Design, all useful skills that no officer in the game can cover for me...

Of course with all the changes coming I've no idea of that idea is still relevant - or whether it was even relevant in the first place, apparently - so we'll just have to see.
Your own skill at piloting ships by itself can better than any AI officer. If you augment that, your flagship can match entire fleets or space stations with just token support. Or without any support, if your flagship happens to be a Conquest (https://youtu.be/SecJjpCirtg?t=3866) or a Paragon (https://youtu.be/KKlDcpAcgTU?t=90).
Don't actually watch the Conquest stream, it's terribly boring most of the time.

About TPCs: the only comparison that makes sense is with ballistic weapons, because those are the only weapons you can choose to fire instead of TPCs. Against them, TPC has a bit of range and burst, but lacks efficiency. Since Onslaught has little flux, the best course of action is not to use TPCs at all, unless it's the only weapon in range and you have no flux. Increasing efficiency of TPCs makes firing them less of a mistake, which helps the AI which does this all the time...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dampfnudel on October 21, 2020, 05:20:45 AM
Can we please get a buff to PD?

Like giving PD a modifier that increases damage to fighters and missiles but reduces damage to everything else.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 21, 2020, 05:30:34 AM
I would like more efficient TPCs so AI does not kill itself by being trigger-happy with TPCs (by emptying two full clips at the earliest opportunity) then rest of the other weapons firing.

The easy fix for that, for player builds, is to put the TPC firing group on Alternating. That should probably happen to vanilla variants as well.
That is not good enough for AI.

What helps more is putting each TPC in separate groups, but the biggest problem with that is lack of weapon groups.  Five is not enough for comfort.  Two taken by TPCs, three left for everything else, and I would like one empty group for no group selected.  I would want at least seven weapon groups for Onslaught with TPCs in separate groups.  (Two for TPCs, four for the rest of Onslaught's weapons, and one more to de-select all weapons.)

Come to think of it, there should be a key to de-select all groups without reserving an empty group and selecting it.  It would make five groups more tolerable.

Quote
The AI can do it. Maybe I should have been more specific and said "player builds for AI use".
I would like to build for "everybody" use, since I frequently swap ships in mid-battle, and I do not want AI to kill itself if I give my flagship to it.  This is one reason Odyssey is my least favorite capital, thanks in part to plasma burn.

Quote
Added Breach SRM (small) and Breach SRM Pod (medium), a new anti-armor missile
Medium version has high ammo, small version is extremely cheap
I wonder how the pod compares with Annihilators.  It would be nice if the new Breach pod lasts at least as long as Locusts.  Even with Expanded Missile Racks, Annihilators do not last long enough in big battles, and Onslaught that relies on Annihilators feels like a quasi-SO ship.  If Breach pods last long, and are effective enough, they might replace Annihilator pods on my Onslaught loadouts.

Often, I pick Conquest over Onslaught because Locusts last longer than Annihilators.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 21, 2020, 06:09:20 AM
Onslaught: I think Alex's approach is fine. Maybe some kind of armor buff would be nice, too.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 21, 2020, 06:13:28 AM
I would not want an armor buff on Onslaught unless either Conquest (and Odyssey and Legion) gets one too or Onslaught DP cost gets raised (to 45).  If there is one buff I like to see on Onslaught, it is more dissipation so it can use heavy weapons aside from Hellbore or Devastator more comfortably.

Conquest receiving 200 armor and hull, plus Heavy Ballistics Integration, along with de-powered skills across the board at 0.8a, raised Conquest from being a joke to being able to brawl against Onslaught and have roughly even chance of winning or losing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 21, 2020, 06:16:10 AM
Honestly I think Conquest has less staying power compared to Onslaught. But also it's a lot cheaper, so I think it's fine.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 21, 2020, 06:19:44 AM
Can we please get a buff to PD?

Like giving PD a modifier that increases damage to fighters and missiles but reduces damage to everything else.
This is a good, simple alternative to my dodge mechanic proposal.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 21, 2020, 06:24:14 AM
Honestly I think Conquest has less staying power compared to Onslaught. But also it's a lot cheaper, so I think it's fine.
Conquest is not so flimsy if its shield is powered up.  Max capacitors or Hardened Shields will give it sufficient durability in a duel.  Also, Conquest can use high-end heavy weapons more easily than Onslaught.

Currently, HAG, Mjolnir, Gauss Cannon, and Storm Needler are almost Conquest-only weapons because it is the only ship with the flux stats to comfortably support them.  I suppose Dominator and Legion can use them if they are the only weapons are the ship; that is, naked hull similar to two blaster, no-missile Aurora or two plasma cannon Odyssey.

Can we please get a buff to PD?

Like giving PD a modifier that increases damage to fighters and missiles but reduces damage to everything else.
This is a good, simple alternative to my dodge mechanic proposal.
I would not want this as a blanket for all.  Heavy machine gun (and probably dual light MG too) is a PD weapon, but it is better used as an assault weapon to compliment the chaingun.  LR PD laser is a low-powered but efficient general-purpose weapon.  Something like Paladin PD would be useful as an autopulse substitute if it was not so inefficient.  Nevermind weapons that get converted to PD like IPDAI IR Pulse Laser or Railgun.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 21, 2020, 06:30:25 AM
I didn't say that Conquest is a paper tiger. I sad it has less staying power.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Modo44 on October 21, 2020, 06:48:53 AM
I didn't say that Conquest is a paper tiger. I sad it has less staying power.
And way more mobility, which makes it it deadlier in a fleet, especially to smaller targets. It should not match low-tech ships for armour. That would make it too easy to use in any situation.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 21, 2020, 07:23:00 AM
Some things to consider regarding the Onslaught.

The Onslaught is ancient. From it's description, we can ascertain that it was designed in a time before shields, having received modifications to get to the point it is at in-game. Already, this means that it's shields shouldn't be up to much, as almost all high tech, shield reliant ships seem to have so little space left for other components that they are limited to energy weaponry. Additionally, design is so significantly different that I imagine high tech ships are built around the various projectors and subsystems necessary to support such defences. As such, the Onslaught's shields should be small, slow, and inefficient for a ship of it's class.

"When first launched from orbital dock, they must have surely dwarfed any other ship in existence"

Further evidence. All this puts the Onslaught at roughly the same epoch as the Hound, a design so outdated that it has either been nearly entirely converted to a cargo freighter, or was built for a time in which hyperdrives were so weak that and even small journeys would take months, or even years.

Note that the Cerberus is obviously a modern(ish) improvement on the freighting capabilities, whether or not originally intended, of the Hound.

Exact sizes are difficult to measure in such an abstract phrase, but this would most probably mean that the standard warships of the time were frigates, with perhaps the rare destroyer or two. The scarcity of low tech destroyers would mean something if not for the possibility that the superior midline destroyers (Hammerheads, Hammerheads, and Hammerheads) completely phased them out before the time at which the game takes place.

As such, the thermal pulse cannons built into the Onslaught are even less sensible than their use on a low tech ship would normally be, as they are clearly not intended for use on small craft.

But do not despair, as there is a (potential) answer to this dilemma. The Onslaught was not meant for ship combat. It was meant for sieges. It was the first step in countering large battlestations, by dumping rounds of thermal lasers at appreciable distance, and then retreating to repeat the process. Additionally, this explains the proclivity for side mounted heavy weaponry - The Onslaught is built to survive swarms of combat frigates as it closes with it's target, breaking the line of battle, and allowing the ships sheltered behind it's heavily armoured bulk to wreck havoc on the enemy. This also explains the burn drive.

Thusly, the Onslaught would have had no issues with the inefficiency of it's weaponry. Of course, it is up to Alex to decide whether the modernisation it received removed that weakness (in this next update, that is).

Anyways, the Onslaught is not meant to be as good as other capitals. The description says it all - it's absolutely archaic, kept alive only by it's simple manufacturing process, ruggedness, and the turmoil and disorder being suffered by the Sector.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 21, 2020, 07:26:52 AM
Honestly I don't really like endgame combat. Defeating the same kind of fleet for the 31st time is not that funny. Especially in Nexerelin, where the Ai just tend to send fleet after fleet against you...
For these kind of trench warfare battles (where the enemy fleet has mostly Conquests btw), the Onslaught holds the line way better. It doesn't have to break the line, holding the line is fine for me. I did that battle 31 times. I just want to eat/ have a shower/etc while my fleet handles the latest bunch of Conquests. That's why I prefer the Onslaught. After I check the battle, they are still there. All of them.

(Alex, if you see this)
Btw some kind of autoresolve would be nice...
The situation I described is one of my reasons to start to eradicate the core worlds. Because either in nex or in vanilla, it's easier to get rid of the source of the problem than handle it constatly...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 21, 2020, 07:35:08 AM
I didn't say that Conquest is a paper tiger. I sad it has less staying power.

It's also a battle cruiser instead of a battleship, and it actually fares a bit better in that role than they probably would when looking at their IRL analogies. (hard to say since that only really happened once and it's easy to draw exaggeratedly harsh conclusions from Jutland, considering the way the Brits disregarded their safety measures) as long as you don't try to straight up facetank the other capitals. (which is also fair since it's also

As for the Onslaught, i would be very wary of buffing it any further with the direct and indirect buffs it's already going to get. Don't see a problem with it being a platform for the lower end large weapons either. If anything the problem is that there aren't enough ships with large slots in total to give every weapon enough viable choices to use them on, and that will probably get corrected over time as the ship lineups are finalized.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 21, 2020, 09:15:58 AM
So, another thing. Wouldn't the new shield for EMP resist trade allow for 100% invulnerability in conjunction with armoured weapon mounts?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 21, 2020, 09:18:55 AM
So, another thing. Wouldn't the new shield for EMP resist trade allow for 100% invulnerability in conjunction with armoured weapon mounts?

Usually reductions to stats are applied multiplicatively in this game, so 2 -50% would yield 25% (and increases to stats are applied additive, so 2 +50% would give 200%, not 225%). That would be my guess at least.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 21, 2020, 09:32:34 AM
So, another thing. Wouldn't the new shield for EMP resist trade allow for 100% invulnerability in conjunction with armoured weapon mounts?

Usually reductions to stats are applied multiplicatively in this game, so 2 -50% would yield 25% (and increases to stats are applied additive, so 2 +50% would give 200%, not 225%). That would be my guess at least.

Right, thanks!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 21, 2020, 10:13:50 AM
Will we be able to go beyond 5 weapon groups next patch? I've seen it being suggested and discussed a couple of times but can't remember if you (Alex) weighed in on it or not, and if so what your opinion on it was.
Does seem like something that might easily have slipped the patch notes even you implemented it.

Nope! It's just enough of a pain to do that I'm hesitant to "just do it".
Usually I don't have an issue with the current five weapon groups... but there are some ships where it's a serious limitation, especially with respect to ships that are being set up for AI control. As has been mentioned, the Onslaught is a major contender here - the TPCs being fixed means that you get much better performance from them if you put them in separate weapon groups... and then you need a group for missiles, and a group for PD, and then you're down to one group left for literally everything else. A Dominator with asymmetrical large guns runs into the same problem, and I've had issues with arming Paragons as well.

Honestly, I actually miss the pre-TPC Onslaught, when it just had an extra two large ballistic hardpoints - with actual firing arcs to them. I used Mjolnirs back then, and those worked pretty well - not the most efficient guns, but highly accurate - and I basically only used them when targets were out of range of the rest of the ship's weaponry, in which context they were effectively flux-neutral.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 10:29:29 AM
@Alex
Any words about that terrible tariffs?
Maybe make them scale down based on reputation and commission?

Well, the word is that they're about as punishing as I'd like them to be :) If they're more than you want to pay, sell that Paragon blueprint on the black market!


Can we please get a buff to PD?

Like giving PD a modifier that increases damage to fighters and missiles but reduces damage to everything else.

Just as a general note - if you don't explain the "why" behind a request of this nature, it's really hard for me to make heads or tails of it.

(That said, there's a point-defense-boosting skill in the next release that's more powerful than what's currently available.)


I wonder how the pod compares with Annihilators.  It would be nice if the new Breach pod lasts at least as long as Locusts.  Even with Expanded Missile Racks, Annihilators do not last long enough in big battles, and Onslaught that relies on Annihilators feels like a quasi-SO ship.  If Breach pods last long, and are effective enough, they might replace Annihilator pods on my Onslaught loadouts.

Often, I pick Conquest over Onslaught because Locusts last longer than Annihilators.

They're fundamentally different roles - the Breach is more anti-armor, while the Annihilators are for sustained pressure. So the answer is "it depends", since Breach use will depend on how often there's an opportunity to fire them off at armor.


Usually reductions to stats are applied multiplicatively in this game, so 2 -50% would yield 25% (and increases to stats are applied additive, so 2 +50% would give 200%, not 225%). That would be my guess at least.

(Yep, correct!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 21, 2020, 10:50:58 AM
I wonder how the pod compares with Annihilators.  It would be nice if the new Breach pod lasts at least as long as Locusts.  Even with Expanded Missile Racks, Annihilators do not last long enough in big battles, and Onslaught that relies on Annihilators feels like a quasi-SO ship.  If Breach pods last long, and are effective enough, they might replace Annihilator pods on my Onslaught loadouts.

Often, I pick Conquest over Onslaught because Locusts last longer than Annihilators.

They're fundamentally different roles - the Breach is more anti-armor, while the Annihilators are for sustained pressure. So the answer is "it depends", since Breach use will depend on how often there's an opportunity to fire them off at armor.
So far, I use Annihilators on Onslaught because there is nothing better.  I use Annihilators mostly for anti-armor because every last forward-facing gun that are not TPCs is Heavy Needler (even in the center heavy mount, for anti-Radiant and everything else).  After a few minutes of sustained firing, Onslaught is out of missiles, and if the fight is not mostly decided by then, Onslaught is not very useful.  Unlike Conquest where it can launch Locusts non-stop for at least half of an entire fight.

The role I am most interested in is general-purpose assault like Locusts are, and one that does not run out too quickly.  The most reliable missiles for medium mounts seems to be Annihilators for that use, and they run out too quickly even with Expanded Missile Racks.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 21, 2020, 11:45:07 AM
Added support for 4k resolutions
Somewhat experimental; please let me know if there are problems



So, I searched the forum but didn't find anything about this: is Starsector compatible with widescreen, or rather will it become with this update?

I'm asking because I just ordered a 34" 3440 x 1440 21:9 monitor.

Relatedly, are framerates >60 supported?  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: dacian on October 21, 2020, 11:49:46 AM
Is the chance to be able to buy a base Atlas (not the bad mk2, which nobody wants, unless you do a Pirate-only run) going to be modified in 0.9.5? In all my runs I hardly get more than 2 from trades and the rest (up to the 5 I usually carry around with me) from having to build them myself on my colonies ...
It's a bit strange since you can find the base Prometheus in almost every big market. I would love that the game would support the "trader" style RP as well, not only the "rush colony" or "rush combat" styles.
If you are able to buy Atlas and Prometheus from major colonies, then a trader style RP run would not even have to build any colonies (in theory)

EDIT: spelling and rephrasing
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on October 21, 2020, 12:02:48 PM
I'm asking because I just ordered a 34" 3440 x 1440 21:9 monitor.
It is, if you can live with very small fonts.
And minor stuff like area you 'hear' in combat being smaller than area you see, making fights on left/right corner of map utterly silent when zoomed out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 12:22:31 PM
So, I searched the forum but didn't find anything about this: is Starsector compatible with widescreen, or rather will it become with this update?

I'm asking because I just ordered a 34" 3440 x 1440 21:9 monitor.

Relatedly, are framerates >60 supported?  ;D

Well... a 3340 x 1440 monitor is less than ideal, since you'd only be able to scale to 1440/768 = 180%, roughly. Which'll work! But, yeah, there may be some issues with too much visibility/sound playback (there definitely would if it wasn't scaled; when scaled this might there might not be, actually). But mainly, since it can't quite scale things 2x, it won't be as crisp as it could be. It's not *bad* (e.g. I've played at 130% on my monitor, which is 1680x1050, and it's fine), but it won't be as nice as actual 4x with 200% scaling.

As far as fps, you can edit settings.json and there's an "fps" value there. You'd need a really beefy computer, though, especially if playing at 3340x1400 in fullscreen with UI scaling and antialiasing (which is basically required since, not 200%), which all requires extra performance from the graphics card.


Is the chance to be able to buy a base Atlas (not the bad mk2, which nobody wants, unless you do a Pirate-only run) going to be modified in 0.9.5? In all my runs I hardly get more than 2 from trades and the rest (up to the 5 I usually carry around with me) from having to build them myself on my colonies ...
It's a bit strange since you can find the base Prometheus in almost every big market. I would love that the game would support the "trader" style RP as well, not only the "rush colony" or "rush combat" styles.
If you are able to buy Atlas and Prometheus from major colonies, then a trader style RP run would not even have to build any colonies (in theory)

EDIT: spelling and rephrasing

You'll be able to custom-order production from contacts/in bars, but: let me make a note to take a look at its baseline availability from markets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MajorTheRed on October 21, 2020, 12:35:13 PM
Once again, a complete new game with each version! It will also provide new opportunities for modding!

A question nobody has asked from what I read: can you give details about the Escort Package and Assault Package?

From one of your previous blog, I guess it is not related to ECM or navigation/speed boost which are now specific to frigates. So maybe they provide other fleet bonus  (sight range? Manoeuvring boost?), or boost some of the ship capacities (flux for assault package, missile bonus for support package?)?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 21, 2020, 01:12:20 PM
So, I searched the forum but didn't find anything about this: is Starsector compatible with widescreen, or rather will it become with this update?

I'm asking because I just ordered a 34" 3440 x 1440 21:9 monitor.

Relatedly, are framerates >60 supported?  ;D

Well... a 3340 x 1440 monitor is less than ideal, since you'd only be able to scale to 1440/768 = 180%, roughly. Which'll work! But, yeah, there may be some issues with too much visibility/sound playback (there definitely would if it wasn't scaled; when scaled this might there might not be, actually). But mainly, since it can't quite scale things 2x, it won't be as crisp as it could be. It's not *bad* (e.g. I've played at 130% on my monitor, which is 1680x1050, and it's fine), but it won't be as nice as actual 4x with 200% scaling.

As far as fps, you can edit settings.json and there's an "fps" value there. You'd need a really beefy computer, though, especially if playing at 3340x1400 in fullscreen with UI scaling and antialiasing (which is basically required since, not 200%), which all requires extra performance from the graphics card.
from markets.

Thanks for the answer:) Great that it works in generaI, guess I will just have to try out the details.
My PC will also be replaced, would you guess a Rizen 5 3600 and a RTX 1660 would suffice?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 02:18:04 PM
A question nobody has asked from what I read: can you give details about the Escort Package and Assault Package?

From one of your previous blog, I guess it is not related to ECM or navigation/speed boost which are now specific to frigates. So maybe they provide other fleet bonus  (sight range? Manoeuvring boost?), or boost some of the ship capacities (flux for assault package, missile bonus for support package?)?

It's a boost to the individual ships, actually! Escort Package gives a lot of hefty PD bonuses, while Assault Package makes the ship into a brick. The effect of these hullmods is *greatly* increased by a relevant skill.


Thanks for the answer:) Great that it works in generaI, guess I will just have to try out the details.
My PC will also be replaced, would you guess a Rizen 5 3600 and a RTX 1660 would suffice?

I'd guess probably? Since it seem like a nice video card. The combination of more pixels (due to widescreen) but needing to use anti-aliasing (due to not-quite-200% scaling) is probably the most performance-intensive situation there is here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kazimierz3000 on October 21, 2020, 02:19:41 PM
Added support for 4k resolutions
Somewhat experimental; please let me know if there are problems



So, I searched the forum but didn't find anything about this: is Starsector compatible with widescreen, or rather will it become with this update?

I'm asking because I just ordered a 34" 3440 x 1440 21:9 monitor.

Relatedly, are framerates >60 supported?  ;D

I posted some pics in another forum section regarding the current ultrawide support, it's beautiful and works well with a decent enough rig (i7 6700k, 1080ti), and 120hz is working without an issue.  I'm curious how the UI adjustments will look in next release.  Here's the post with pics- http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15160.msg245627#msg245627
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 21, 2020, 02:34:22 PM
Cool, thanks for the link! The pictures look great, even without scaling!


The combination of more pixels (due to widescreen) but needing to use anti-aliasing (due to not-quite-200% scaling) is probably the most performance-intensive situation there is here.

So it's hard-mode for my hardware, got it. Well, I have to somehow justify planning my new PC around a 2D indie game from 2011^^''
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 02:43:35 PM
So it's hard-mode for my hardware, got it. Well, I have to somehow justify planning my new PC around a 2D indie game from 2011^^''

Well it's technically not 1.0 yet right so that clock hasn't started ticking? Maybe? :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 21, 2020, 02:58:36 PM
Maybe?^^ Nowadays there are so many early access games which have reached their peak player base long before 1.0 (if they ever hit that) and are largely forgotten by the time they are released. Not Starsector of course! But I think the old concepts about alpha, beta, release are long since meaningless.

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
But I think the old concepts about alpha, beta, release are long since meaningless.

I'm sure you're right, but I'm sticking to them :)

(Re: "release", I remember reading sometime back that the initial EA release on Steam is basically "the release", as far as any potential interest from press etc goes, and the actual 1.0 release doesn't really register... so, yeah, I'm sure you're right.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 21, 2020, 04:50:07 PM
Is the chance to be able to buy a base Atlas (not the bad mk2, which nobody wants, unless you do a Pirate-only run) going to be modified in 0.9.5? In all my runs I hardly get more than 2 from trades and the rest (up to the 5 I usually carry around with me) from having to build them myself on my colonies ...
It's a bit strange since you can find the base Prometheus in almost every big market. I would love that the game would support the "trader" style RP as well, not only the "rush colony" or "rush combat" styles.
If you are able to buy Atlas and Prometheus from major colonies, then a trader style RP run would not even have to build any colonies (in theory)

EDIT: spelling and rephrasing

You'll be able to custom-order production from contacts/in bars, but: let me make a note to take a look at its baseline availability from markets.

About that. An idea would be (1) the ability to host a faction without owning a world and (2) the ability to hire captains to (say) trade between various worlds, with the player receiving a cut or something of that sort. Essentially, we can imitate the Hegemony, but we can't imitate the Tri-Tachyon. This would tie into the game's dynamic economy very well too, and provide a very different experience. You could tie this in with colonies, and have the player negotiate trade deals with contacts and in some situations even receive military contracts, and this could further tie into the proposed starting phases of a colony as a mission or two. Also, diplomacy (ie vassalage and allowing players the ability to found colonies in a faction's name) is a must at some point or another, whether in vanilla or in nex.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 21, 2020, 05:31:18 PM
Alex, what post-colony credit sinks will there be? Fleets? Research? Megaprojects?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Deshara on October 21, 2020, 09:23:43 PM
But I think the old concepts about alpha, beta, release are long since meaningless.

I'm sure you're right, but I'm sticking to them :)

(Re: "release", I remember reading sometime back that the initial EA release on Steam is basically "the release", as far as any potential interest from press etc goes, and the actual 1.0 release doesn't really register... so, yeah, I'm sure you're right.)

its funny bc 2.0 releases for games that get re-made into a different game after release seem to make more of a difference than the 1.0 release.

A question nobody has asked from what I read: can you give details about the Escort Package and Assault Package?

From one of your previous blog, I guess it is not related to ECM or navigation/speed boost which are now specific to frigates. So maybe they provide other fleet bonus  (sight range? Manoeuvring boost?), or boost some of the ship capacities (flux for assault package, missile bonus for support package?)?

It's a boost to the individual ships, actually! Escort Package gives a lot of hefty PD bonuses, while Assault Package makes the ship into a brick. The effect of these hullmods is *greatly* increased by a relevant skill.

The combination of more pixels (due to widescreen) but needing to use anti-aliasing (due to not-quite-200% scaling) is probably the most performance-intensive situation there is here.

What do you mean by the 200% thing? Whats the relation between 200% scaling & anti-aliasing?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 21, 2020, 09:29:27 PM
About that. An idea would be (1) the ability to host a faction without owning a world and (2) the ability to hire captains to (say) trade between various worlds, with the player receiving a cut or something of that sort. Essentially, we can imitate the Hegemony, but we can't imitate the Tri-Tachyon. This would tie into the game's dynamic economy very well too, and provide a very different experience. You could tie this in with colonies, and have the player negotiate trade deals with contacts and in some situations even receive military contracts, and this could further tie into the proposed starting phases of a colony as a mission or two.

The question is, how is this interesting mechanically, aside from being a nice roleplaying thing? Colonies have the potential to make some trouble for you (i.e. lead into combat); the specifics of this can certainly be refined, but at least the path is there. If you just hire a fleet to trade for you, is it just a "get more money over time" mechanic? The design work here would be trying to make this interesting.

Also, diplomacy (ie vassalage and allowing players the ability to found colonies in a faction's name) is a must at some point or another, whether in vanilla or in nex.

(Just speaking as far as vanilla, I wouldn't say diplomacy etc is a "goal" - I can see adding something along these lines, but it's more likely if it was needed for something else to work, not for its own sake.)


Alex, what post-colony credit sinks will there be? Fleets? Research? Megaprojects?

:-X


What do you mean by the 200% thing? Whats the relation between 200% scaling & anti-aliasing?

If you scale to 200% (or 300%), there's no need for anti-aliasing - it already looks good, because it's double the amount of pixels, so the scaling algorithm has an easier time. For example, a line that's 1 pixel wide becomes 2 pixels wide, etc. If you scale to, say, 180%, a line 1 pixel wide becomes 1.8 pixels wide - which, of course, isn't a thing - and antialiasing is required to make that look reasonably good.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 21, 2020, 11:48:32 PM
About that. An idea would be (1) the ability to host a faction without owning a world and (2) the ability to hire captains to (say) trade between various worlds, with the player receiving a cut or something of that sort. Essentially, we can imitate the Hegemony, but we can't imitate the Tri-Tachyon. This would tie into the game's dynamic economy very well too, and provide a very different experience. You could tie this in with colonies, and have the player negotiate trade deals with contacts and in some situations even receive military contracts, and this could further tie into the proposed starting phases of a colony as a mission or two.

The question is, how is this interesting mechanically, aside from being a nice roleplaying thing? Colonies have the potential to make some trouble for you (i.e. lead into combat); the specifics of this can certainly be refined, but at least the path is there. If you just hire a fleet to trade for you, is it just a "get more money over time" mechanic? The design work here would be trying to make this interesting.

This would mostly just provide more intricacy to colony building, but I could see a company of some sort be interesting. Maybe a combination of warding off pirates (perhaps through mercenaries), having to build trust with contacts, that sort of thing. It wouldn't supplant normal gameplay, just be an option with various difficulties (non-randomised, as discussed before) inherent. Then one can add the black market into the mix too. Now it is rather passive, but a large amount of good could come from a specialised intel tab, allowing the player to view their trade routes, and perhaps even the trade routes of other factions. That brings us to another application for contacts. Spies. I need to go now. Bye!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pairedeciseaux on October 22, 2020, 12:34:01 AM
Usually I don't have an issue with the current five weapon groups... but there are some ships where it's a serious limitation, especially with respect to ships that are being set up for AI control.

Similar thought here. 5 weapon groups is enough in most situations. But I find it kind of frustrating in a few player-controlled-ship situations. Thinking about Onslaught, Conquest, Legion, Aurora and Gryphon here (maybe others).

The thing is, the 5 groups limit means I'm not as creative as I could when designing a load-out. On Conquest I always leave medium missile mounts empty because I can't find a satisfying way to control them without crippling the whole ship. So I would say the 5 group limit is gameplay-limiting in such cases. I have stopped piloting Onslaught 2 years ago because of this (and because AI is pretty good at it with appropriate load-outs).

On the other hand, finding load-out design solutions within the 5 group constrain means I have to be creative in other ways, so I would say its fair (kind of frustrating) game.  ;D
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 22, 2020, 12:36:25 AM
About that. An idea would be (1) the ability to host a faction without owning a world and (2) the ability to hire captains to (say) trade between various worlds, with the player receiving a cut or something of that sort. Essentially, we can imitate the Hegemony, but we can't imitate the Tri-Tachyon. This would tie into the game's dynamic economy very well too, and provide a very different experience. You could tie this in with colonies, and have the player negotiate trade deals with contacts and in some situations even receive military contracts, and this could further tie into the proposed starting phases of a colony as a mission or two.

The question is, how is this interesting mechanically, aside from being a nice roleplaying thing? Colonies have the potential to make some trouble for you (i.e. lead into combat); the specifics of this can certainly be refined, but at least the path is there. If you just hire a fleet to trade for you, is it just a "get more money over time" mechanic? The design work here would be trying to make this interesting.

This would mostly just provide more intricacy to colony building, but I could see a company of some sort be interesting. Maybe a combination of warding off pirates (perhaps through mercenaries), having to build trust with contacts, that sort of thing. It wouldn't supplant normal gameplay, just be an option with various difficulties (non-randomised, as discussed before) inherent. Then one can add the black market into the mix too. Now it is rather passive, but a large amount of good could come from a specialised intel tab, allowing the player to view their trade routes, and perhaps even the trade routes of other factions. That brings us to another application for contacts. Spies. I need to go now. Bye!
Don't forget, there's always room for other factions attacking your companies if they get desperate.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sarissofoi on October 22, 2020, 12:37:54 AM
@Alex
Any words about that terrible tariffs?
Maybe make them scale down based on reputation and commission?

Well, the word is that they're about as punishing as I'd like them to be :) If they're more than you want to pay, sell that Paragon blueprint on the black market!


That is the problem.
Black market is all profit and almost zero risks.
I do not understand your opposition to allowing players making money from legal trade.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 22, 2020, 01:04:45 AM
That is the problem.
Black market is all profit and almost zero risks.
I do not understand your opposition to allowing players making money from legal trade.
Riskier should be more rewarding, no?

The problems are that the black market isn't risky enough and players aren't rewarded enough for being really friendly with a faction.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 22, 2020, 02:00:31 AM
I do not understand your opposition to allowing players making money from legal trade.

Tariffs are meant to discourage players from giving themselves an endless chain of boring fetch quest to make money in a safe way. Btw, you can do legal trade via bar missions.

The problems are that the black market isn't risky enough and players aren't rewarded enough for being really friendly with a faction.

Agreed. Transponder-off smuggling is more exciting, but there's too little reason to do so, because transponder-on black market trade is so safe. Sometimes I wish it wasn't accessible at all with your transponders on.
But there are softer options. If, in case of high suspicion, your ships would get physically searched (causing disruption and lowering CR) instead of just scanned, that would up the stakes. Or if suspicious factions would continuously shadow you with some picket ships while you're in system, that could hinder your operations quite a bit. (Until you lure those watchdogs into a passing pirate fleet, of course.)


If you scale to 200% (or 300%), there's no need for anti-aliasing - it already looks good, because it's double the amount of pixels, so the scaling algorithm has an easier time. For example, a line that's 1 pixel wide becomes 2 pixels wide, etc. If you scale to, say, 180%, a line 1 pixel wide becomes 1.8 pixels wide - which, of course, isn't a thing - and antialiasing is required to make that look reasonably good.

Just to make sure: What keeps me from scaling to 200% (if my screen resolution is smaller than that) is that it would cut off the UI at the top and bottom, because it doesn't move, right?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 22, 2020, 05:37:21 AM
For all of the talk about making Black Markets more risky does nothing to those whose Black Market visits are mostly at the bases of their enemies before destroying them.

Most of my black market visits are at the pop-up zombie pirate bases to sell vendor trash and buy crew and marines before I raid them to steal back some of the items I just sold, then destroy them.  (Omit raid and destroy if friendly with pirates.)

Quote
Transponder-off smuggling is more exciting
While transponder-on trade may be safe, I never use that option because I do not want to deal with patrol scans.  Plus there are enough places where I can safely turn off transponder next to the market before docking.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 22, 2020, 06:15:01 AM
@Alex

I would like to weigh in on the colony size discussion.

First of all, I completely understand, that the changes won't really affect the mechanics and the balance of power. So I'm not very interested in changing your mind at all.

However, I think many commentators simply don't understand why some players complain about this change, including maybe you. They don't necessarily complain about the change in the balance of power. Many of them see this limit (^6) doesn't make sense in-fiction-wise. Although for you, it makes the world more believable, for them it makes it less believable.

I think I can see the reason. Because it's on the edge of being possible/impossible.

Let's analyze the situation a bit.

The Sector has a population on the order of 10^8s, because of the Hegemony.

(Totally unrelated, but it's interesting to think about it for a moment. Depending on the exact population of Chicomoztoc and the size 7 planets the Hegemony owns between 30% and 90% of the Sectors population. If we think the size 7 and 8 planets are just barely size 7 or 8, we get that the Hegemony has around 2/3s of the total population.)

So theoretically, not counting external interference, the maximum size of our faction's planets should be 8.
Could it happen?
First let's investigate the possibility of a size 7, in let's say ~25 cycles. Let's assume that it reaches size 6 in 10 cycles. This assumption is based on the fact that you allow size 6 and a playthrough lasts for 10-15 cycles, so at least for me, it indicates, that you think this could happen.

Is size 6 to 7 change is possible in 15 cycles? The supply (Sector population) is there. The demand (our planet) is there, too.

Let's look at some historical examples.

The US had an immigration rate of 10%/decade for two decades. That means +5 and +8 million in the 1860s or 1900s respectively.
So theoretically, IF immigration is independent of the starting population this COULD happen, at least it did happen.
We have to consider many factors here. Is the desperation of the Core big enough? Enough ships to relocate the population? Is it widely accessible? Enough money spent on attracting immigrants?

Is immigration independent of the starting population? Depends. Based on technological sophistication and the initial conditions of the planet it could be, more or less.

So my personal conclusion is that with enough money and a desperate enough pool of immigrants, this is borderline impossible or possible depending on technology. Maybe habitable worlds with farmlands could support this kind of growth. So I can totally understand why many people say it's possible, but I can also understand why don't you like it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 22, 2020, 07:00:29 AM
@ TerranEmpire: I agree with your point.  10^7 looks like something that can be achieved in a game that lasts decades.  (I did have games that lasted a little more than 15 years, and could go on if I wanted, because endgame is my favorite part of the game.)  If a game lasts long enough, it is plausible that the player's faction has been around long enough to grow into major faction status.  Especially, if my faction can defend against zombie pirates and major factions cannot.

10^8 on a player colony, I can see not happening unless Chicomoztoc or other core planet grows into 10^9 during the game.

It would be mildly disappointing if the only way I can match major factions is to permanently knock them down to Indie equivalents through saturation bombings.

However, that all assumes the player has unlimited time, and there is no threat that will kill the sector (like Kohr-Ah in Star Control 2) if more than a few years pass.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 07:57:27 AM
Another thing.

I see you responded to a comment about zombie pirates by saying that the player needs something to fight. This, to be honest, is B.S. of the highest order. Smart pirates would allow for much more interesting possibilities when trading, which would allow for legal trade as a viable activity, not a severely punished series of fetch quests. After all, when you could get accosted by a superior force of pirates at any time, it would be rather thrilling. Just make black market trade much harder to compensate. Exploring the possibilities further, pirates could be more finely grouped by star system, with individual gangs and their leaders,

(who would integrate rather seamlessly into the contact system, perhaps by having each leader hosted in pirate bases. They would be less difficult to reach, too, as the pirates would only attack good targets. That is, trade convoys, weak entrepreneurs, and anyone that wouldn't destroy a large number of their ships. Additionally, the leaders could have flag ships, mimicking the bounties, and you could even allow for hostile takeover of a group via destruction of their vessel. This would not be a easy way of making cash, not only because returns from such a business would be sporadic and entirely dependent on auto resolve encounters in the system, but also because pirate fleets could be severely increased in power level)

even if the overarching faction wasn't modified. As for combat opportunities, there are plenty, from hunting the Luddic path to fighting derelicts to attacking trade convoys yourself. Not to mention that you could just seek out the pirates if you did want to fight them. And they would still come after you if you were obviously transporting something valuable. The Luddic path has an excuse for being suicidal, but the pirates do not.

You might respond that this would inconvenience the player, but I simply see it as more opportunities for unique gameplay events, thus increasing the number of active elements involved in rather passive activities such as trading.

In the words of DF, !!Fun!!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 22, 2020, 08:21:31 AM
Domain Derelicts would be much better early game zombie-like enemies than pirates, IMO. Track them back to their spawners (probes), nests (survey ships), and finally to the origins (motherships), eliminating the threat.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 22, 2020, 08:30:59 AM
In terms of population, the US in the 1800-1900s was receiving immigration from the rest of the world which had a population of a few billion (10^9), so immigration population was three orders of magnitude lower than the total population (~10^6 per year). In our sector, that would mean we would expect early immigration on the order of 10^5, and it would take 100 year to hit 10^7 from immigration at that rate.

It is strange that the population of the entire sector is less than earth in the 1800s. I've always felt like all of the scripted worlds should have population increased by 1-2 orders of magnitude. In that case, the player could have 10^7 colonies while still being firmly behind the scripted worlds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 22, 2020, 08:50:12 AM
I don't think that the magnitude of the world population is a good indicator here.
Most of that population was not even close to technology levels capable of intercontinental travel or had no hope at all to make the journey (from China or British India for eg).
AFAIK that's not the case in SS.

Even if that is the case, the desperation level is more relevant. And IMO the desperation level in the Sector is very-very high, like Irish immigration levels high.

I don't want to say, it's plausible, but I think it's wrong to say, that it's implausible.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Toxcity on October 22, 2020, 08:54:39 AM
The thing with Pirates as starting enemies is that you have easy access to them, while often having access to a station to repair or refit. Pirate ships are also recoverable letting you build up a small (if faulty) fleet early on.

EDIT: When you hit the level cap, does the experience needed to get Story Points level out? Or does the exp needed still increase?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 22, 2020, 09:01:51 AM
EXP levels out.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 22, 2020, 09:15:48 AM
That is the problem.
Black market is all profit and almost zero risks.
I do not understand your opposition to allowing players making money from legal trade.
The problems are that the black market isn't risky enough and players aren't rewarded enough for being really friendly with a faction.

Agreed. Transponder-off smuggling is more exciting, but there's too little reason to do so, because transponder-on black market trade is so safe. Sometimes I wish it wasn't accessible at all with your transponders on.
But there are softer options. If, in case of high suspicion, your ships would get physically searched (causing disruption and lowering CR) instead of just scanned, that would up the stakes. Or if suspicious factions would continuously shadow you with some picket ships while you're in system, that could hinder your operations quite a bit. (Until you lure those watchdogs into a passing pirate fleet, of course.)

Right, yeah - if that's the issue, I think the better solution would be to make it more dangerous, not to make the other alternative more equivalent to it - that seems less interesting. The "physical search" idea - with the option to refuse, of course - sounds interesting!


If you scale to 200% (or 300%), there's no need for anti-aliasing - it already looks good, because it's double the amount of pixels, so the scaling algorithm has an easier time. For example, a line that's 1 pixel wide becomes 2 pixels wide, etc. If you scale to, say, 180%, a line 1 pixel wide becomes 1.8 pixels wide - which, of course, isn't a thing - and antialiasing is required to make that look reasonably good.

Just to make sure: What keeps me from scaling to 200% (if my screen resolution is smaller than that) is that it would cut off the UI at the top and bottom, because it doesn't move, right?

Yeah. The way scaling works is it well, scales the screen by that amount. So if you were to scale 1440 by 2x, you'd get 720 - which is below the minimal-supported 768p.


@Alex

I would like to weigh in on the colony size discussion.

First of all, I completely understand, that the changes won't really affect the mechanics and the balance of power. So I'm not very interested in changing your mind at all.

However, I think many commentators simply don't understand why some players complain about this change, including maybe you. They don't necessarily complain about the change in the balance of power. Many of them see this limit (^6) doesn't make sense in-fiction-wise. Although for you, it makes the world more believable, for them it makes it less believable.

I think I can see the reason. Because it's on the edge of being possible/impossible.
...

I see what you're saying, yeah. My counter-point is that for me, 10^6 is very much already stretching the bounds of believability, especially in the timeframes involved.

Domain Derelicts would be much better early game zombie-like enemies than pirates, IMO. Track them back to their spawners (probes), nests (survey ships), and finally to the origins (motherships), eliminating the threat.

Mechanically, sure! But that has a very different feel ("fight off a von neumann swarm") from the very start of the game that colors the entire experience and backstory in ways I don't like. And, really, pirates could function much the same way; there's nothing stopping that, I don't think? And they already to do some extent; bases etc.

EDIT: When you hit the level cap, does the experience needed to get Story Points level out? Or does the exp needed still increase?
EXP levels out.

(Yep, correct!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 22, 2020, 09:20:18 AM
Alex, please add more ballistics with ammo and a kinetic torpedo.
And a midline carrier capital.

What is the new Missile Specialization like?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 09:28:34 AM
I don't think that the magnitude of the world population is a good indicator here.
Most of that population was not even close to technology levels capable of intercontinental travel or had no hope at all to make the journey (from China or British India for eg).
AFAIK that's not the case in SS.

Even if that is the case, the desperation level is more relevant. And IMO the desperation level in the Sector is very-very high, like Irish immigration levels high.

I don't want to say, it's plausible, but I think it's wrong to say, that it's implausible.

Why would they want to be in some backwards colony instead?

And population is low because birth control in advanced societies, and because the population had to grow from a few small colonies in a desolate sector to billions in massive city worlds, in less than a thousand years.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 09:35:02 AM
Domain Derelicts would be much better early game zombie-like enemies than pirates, IMO. Track them back to their spawners (probes), nests (survey ships), and finally to the origins (motherships), eliminating the threat.

Mechanically, sure! But that has a very different feel ("fight off a von neumann swarm") from the very start of the game that colors the entire experience and backstory in ways I don't like. And, really, pirates could function much the same way; there's nothing stopping that, I don't think? And they already to do some extent; bases etc.

A basic sense of realism, perhaps? It's not like you'd be fighting an encroaching swarm, you'd be exploring uncivilised space, strewn with the remains of ancient survey flotillas, fighting rusty defence drones in a search for relics of a lost age. That does fit the Persian sector, imo.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 09:37:33 AM
The thing with Pirates as starting enemies is that you have easy access to them, while often having access to a station to repair or refit. Pirate ships are also recoverable letting you build up a small (if faulty) fleet early on.

EDIT: When you hit the level cap, does the experience needed to get Story Points level out? Or does the exp needed still increase?

I have literally never taken ships from the pirates. Anything with defects is automatic trash, and you get enough money in the first thirty minutes of a game to finance a small carrier fleet.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 22, 2020, 09:41:58 AM

Why would they want to be in some backwards colony instead?

And population is low because birth control in advanced societies, and because the population had to grow from a few small colonies in a desolate sector to billions in massive city worlds, in less than a thousand years.

Please consult the settlers of the New World, and I'm pretty sure you'll have your answer :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 22, 2020, 10:06:23 AM

It is strange that the population of the entire sector is less than earth in the 1800s. I've always felt like all of the scripted worlds should have population increased by 1-2 orders of magnitude. In that case, the player could have 10^7 colonies while still being firmly behind the scripted worlds.

They've had one devastating war after the other since the collapse, after already struggling with remaining self sufficient after that event itself. Ruins in the core worlds, some lore about planets that got "planet busted" (sat bombed, nuked, idk), etc.

Who knows how large the population was at the time of the collapse (persean sector was *relatively* new and backwater afaik but that could mean anything), but i don't get the impression that the 200 years since then have seen the same demographic changes we've seen on Earth since the 1800s. (Even all the massacres of Nazism and Communism have only been a blip when you clinically compare it to total population after all)

Having said that, you could indeed easily increase all the populations by 2 orders of magnitudes (so Chico is 10^10) and it would be just as believable, just saying that considering the sector history the way it currently is also seems to make sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 10:30:26 AM

Why would they want to be in some backwards colony instead?

And population is low because birth control in advanced societies, and because the population had to grow from a few small colonies in a desolate sector to billions in massive city worlds, in less than a thousand years.

Please consult the settlers of the New World, and I'm pretty sure you'll have your answer :)

Did I stutter?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 22, 2020, 11:01:14 AM
Another thing.
This, to be honest, is B.S. of the highest order.

Did I stutter?

This is not appropriate language for the forum. Please choose your words more carefully.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IronBorn on October 22, 2020, 11:48:07 AM
The thing with Pirates as starting enemies is that you have easy access to them, while often having access to a station to repair or refit. Pirate ships are also recoverable letting you build up a small (if faulty) fleet early on.

EDIT: When you hit the level cap, does the experience needed to get Story Points level out? Or does the exp needed still increase?

I have literally never taken ships from the pirates. Anything with defects is automatic trash, and you get enough money in the first thirty minutes of a game to finance a small carrier fleet.

I love me a good d-Mod fleet! In fact, I would like to see more d-Mod ships! I think pristine ships should be extremely rare. Would be cool if ships degraded over time, gaining d-Mods, and also could get d-Mods from taking hull damage in combat. D-mod everything!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on October 22, 2020, 12:35:50 PM
I see what you're saying, yeah. My counter-point is that for me, 10^6 is very much already stretching the bounds of believability, especially in the timeframes involved.

Real-life migrations, like the one caused by the Syrian civil war, already are on the magnitude of beyond 10^6 today. Tens of millions were displaced within a few years during WW2.
So when assuming future technology for automated construction, 10^7 sounds reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ascent on October 22, 2020, 12:51:35 PM
If a core world somehow drops to or below 10^6 (I forget if this is possible in vanilla), is it "allowed" to go above it again? If so, is there something that clearly distinguishes planets with and without this permission to exceed the cap?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 22, 2020, 12:54:51 PM
The more we talk about, the more believable it becomes, that ^7 is achievable in ~25 cycles, IF you are the island of tranquility in the ocean of madness...
It means nothing more, just that roughly 5-10% of the Sector's total population chooses your New World instead of the declining Core Worlds.

@Alex

What is less believable?
Becoming the safe heaven in 25 cycles, attracting the 1/10th of the Sector's population, or creating a fleet that could wipe out the Core Worlds...?
Because the latter is very much possible in 10-15 cycles...
I would rather have size 7 in 25 cycles, than a fleet (and the necessary supporting economy) that could wipe out everything, without any intervention or effective resistance in 15 cycles.

It's not my intention to attack your work, just I think this is a far greater believability problem compared to the size 7 colonies...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Melanoc3tus II on October 22, 2020, 01:02:14 PM
I see what you're saying, yeah. My counter-point is that for me, 10^6 is very much already stretching the bounds of believability, especially in the timeframes involved.

Real-life migrations, like the one caused by the Syrian civil war, already are on the magnitude of beyond 10^6 today. Tens of millions were displaced within a few years during WW2.
So when assuming future technology for automated construction, 10^7 sounds reasonable to me.

That's for countries in constant war. The majority of the Sector's population resides within the Hegemony, a secure, orderly authoritarian state. Why would they move in the first place?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 22, 2020, 01:07:34 PM
By the way, will factions start with some of those nanoforge-but-for-other-industries items used? It would give some incentive to raid factions besides blueprints, nanoforges and synchrotrons.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sqrt(-1) on October 22, 2020, 01:15:12 PM
I see what you're saying, yeah. My counter-point is that for me, 10^6 is very much already stretching the bounds of believability, especially in the timeframes involved.

Real-life migrations, like the one caused by the Syrian civil war, already are on the magnitude of beyond 10^6 today. Tens of millions were displaced within a few years during WW2.
So when assuming future technology for automated construction, 10^7 sounds reasonable to me.

That's for countries in constant war. The majority of the Sector's population resides within the Hegemony, a secure, orderly authoritarian state. Why would they move in the first place?

What makes the game's story background so great is that large parts of the sector are in chaos after the gates shut down. Hundreds of once heavily populated planets are in ruins.
So I would in fact find it unrealistic that solely 10^6 people would be attracted to a new jewel of prosperity. Again, we are talking about entire planets, not just countries as in the present and historic earth.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 22, 2020, 01:23:33 PM
i dont get why you guys are still debating colonies, just raise it in the setting file if you disagree
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 22, 2020, 01:27:48 PM
I mean if your whole idea is that the sector is super chaotic and run down, then you should find it very unrealistic that you can make a colony a 'jewel of prosperity' in only a few years. Why has no one else done that if you can do it so easily? It's much more believable that your colony is just as run down as everywhere else. Also, the sector has less population than current earth. Our earth has 10^9 population and the largest world in the Persian sector has 10^8. Most worlds in the sector have the population of an earth city or less. Most countries on earth would be size 7-8 worlds. China and India would be size 9 worlds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 22, 2020, 01:34:50 PM
I find the colony debate strange. The Sector, as a whole, is on the decline so multiple 10^7 colonies or more popping up randomly makes little sense.

I couldn't care less what the arbitrary cap is to colonies as long as colonies operate, mechanically, the same. I think it odd that there is an expectation for a colony to grow from 1,000 to over 10 million or more in the span of 10-15 years. Soft caps or no, I know I won't be playing 30 in-game years just to see a colony go from 10^7 to 10^8, especially considering there is no in-game benefit for doing so. There's no realism to be achieved here so an arbitrary value doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't understand the fixation, honestly. It's an immersion thing, sure, but there are way bigger fish to fry.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 22, 2020, 01:40:36 PM

That's for countries in constant war. The majority of the Sector's population resides within the Hegemony, a secure, orderly authoritarian state. Why would they move in the first place?

This. The larger worlds (where the mayority by far lives, thanks to the 10^X way of size increases) are pretty stable as far as the game mechanics are concerned in the first place. They can ward off the pirate raids.

Add to that that moving to another planet is something very different than moving to a neighboring region, or the neighboring country, or even to keep going untill you hit the North Sea, especially in a game world that is in enough chaos and decline that getting a ticket on a Nebula transport is probably out of reach of the most desperate of the masses.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 22, 2020, 02:09:10 PM
If a core world somehow drops to or below 10^6 (I forget if this is possible in vanilla), is it "allowed" to go above it again? If so, is there something that clearly distinguishes planets with and without this permission to exceed the cap?

Non-player colonies don't grow, so this doesn't really apply.

By the way, will factions start with some of those nanoforge-but-for-other-industries items used? It would give some incentive to raid factions besides blueprints, nanoforges and synchrotrons.

IIRC there's a few cases where they do - where needed to make the economy "work" as far as the core worlds producing enough stuff for their demand, or at least close to it - but not generally for every type of item.


I find the colony debate strange. The Sector, as a whole, is on the decline so multiple 10^7 colonies or more popping up randomly makes little sense.

I couldn't care less what the arbitrary cap is to colonies as long as colonies operate, mechanically, the same. I think it odd that there is an expectation for a colony to grow from 1,000 to over 10 million or more in the span of 10-15 years. Soft caps or no, I know I won't be playing 30 in-game years just to see a colony go from 10^7 to 10^8, especially considering there is no in-game benefit for doing so. There's no realism to be achieved here so an arbitrary value doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't understand the fixation, honestly. It's an immersion thing, sure, but there are way bigger fish to fry.

On the whole, this sums up how I actually feel about it extremely well. I don't want to dismiss anyone's concerns, but past a certain point, it's a subjective "feel" thing, and trying to argue about it - in either direction! - is not very productive. And mechanically, the limit of 6 works with the new stuff.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 22, 2020, 02:20:09 PM
What is less believable?
Becoming the safe heaven in 25 cycles, attracting the 1/10th of the Sector's population, or creating a fleet that could wipe out the Core Worlds...?
Because the latter is very much possible in 10-15 cycles...
Player can build a core killer fleet in less than five cycles.  It is easier to obtain this fleet and bomb the core worlds to death than a fleet that can kill the strongest endgame enemy fleets.  The fleets that guard even capital core worlds are roughly on par with 200k bounties, while expedition/named bounty fleets are 300+k.  The only fight that is remotely challenging is the TT capital world because the high-tech star fortress can get cheap kills with long-range mine spam.

Core worlds have inadequate defenses.  More so if caught while pirates raid the system.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 22, 2020, 02:28:23 PM
IIRC there's a few cases where they do - where needed to make the economy "work" as far as the core worlds producing enough stuff for their demand, or at least close to it - but not generally for every type of item.
If you don't want all of them to be available in every run, you can make them random instead.

What is less believable?
Becoming the safe heaven in 25 cycles, attracting the 1/10th of the Sector's population, or creating a fleet that could wipe out the Core Worlds...?
Because the latter is very much possible in 10-15 cycles...
Player can build a core killer fleet in less than five cycles.  It is easier to obtain this fleet and bomb the core worlds to death than a fleet that can kill the strongest endgame enemy fleets.
The time to obtain a sector-destroying fleet is the time to obtain a Paragon and a Conquest. Paragon can destroy any station and Conquest can destroy any fleet. I wonder how fast could I get those, if I used every trick in the book...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FAX on October 22, 2020, 07:35:09 PM
I'm wondering is there anything related to Doom-class in 0.95? ;) beside Tweaked Mine Strike ship system AI.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Serenitis on October 23, 2020, 12:55:54 AM
Being able to create a colony, build an industy, and then drop an item on it & instantly outcompete most of the sector for production feels like far more of an issue than a number not changing tbh.

Industry items are a flat bonus, which is disproportionately good early on.
Maybe it might be worth considering scaling the industry items boosts with the output of said industry?


Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 23, 2020, 01:59:08 AM
I stated, that the colony thing is strictly a believability issue for those who attack it.
At least that's my take...

And the reason we still debate it is that's it on the edge of believability when you think about a ~25 cycle playthrough.
No one really complains about size 9 or 10. We all get it. But size 7 might seem plausible.

Of course, as I said, the total core elimination in a few cycles is a much greater problem.
@Alex

Btw I could very much imagine 10^7 migration towards your colonies in just a few years if you start to eliminate every world and apparently no one can stop you. If I were a Core World citizen I would definitely pack up and move to the only faction expected to survive...

So if we really want to cap the colonies based on lore-related arguments, we should definitely fix the balance of power issue.
For me, this kind of disparity just breaks the immersion. No one would sit and wait until everything is destroyed. If they can't defend their population, they wouldn't just give up, they would definitely move towards the last faction standing.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 23, 2020, 02:49:07 AM
@Alex

Btw I could very much imagine 10^7 migration

The man made pretty clear that it's a matter of opinion and that he wont change his. It's time to let it go, before the line between discussion and campaigning becomes blurry.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 23, 2020, 02:53:30 AM
Yea it's weird to me how so many people got annoyed by that change, but hey it's easily moddable.

Anyways I forgot to ask one more thing. Will we get new ships in the simulator to test against? I know this is super minor and not important as the rest but it's nice to have a wider array of opponents you can test your build versus. Also please add the new combat ships to the random mission, thanks.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TaLaR on October 23, 2020, 02:59:18 AM
Yea it's weird to me how so many people got annoyed by that change, but hey it's easily moddable.

Anyways I forgot to ask one more thing. Will we get new ships in the simulator to test against? I know this is super minor and not important as the rest but it's nice to have a wider array of opponents you can test your build versus. Also please add the new combat ships to the random mission, thanks.

Adding new ships to simulator and some missions is also easy.
Still, not having to do that would be a lot more convenient.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 23, 2020, 03:04:47 AM
I know, I actually added pirate and Ludd capitals to the random mission but I'm still not super comfortable messing with the game files. And if it's that easy I guess it won't take much dev time for it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: TerranEmpire on October 23, 2020, 03:07:43 AM
I don't campaign. I know it's useless.

Pointing out this inconsistency between colony size and core elimination has two solutions...
He hasn't ruled out making the core elimination harder.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 23, 2020, 03:38:15 AM
He hasn't ruled out making the core elimination harder.
Yes please, destroying the core should be far harder.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 23, 2020, 06:09:40 AM
Industry items are a flat bonus, which is disproportionately good early on.
Maybe it might be worth considering scaling the industry items boosts with the output of said industry?
The old items are getting indirectly nerfed.  Synchrotron will require a planet without an atmosphere.  That sounds like 150% hazard minimum.  Nanoforge will put pollution on a habitable planet.  Currently, I put those industries are low hazard (100% or less) planets because of upkeep.  I cannot really do that next release if I want to use those items.

I wonder of a habitable planet will be required to use a forge (for unavoidable pollution), or if forge can be used anywhere and pollute only habitables.

Currently, meeting demand of the most demanding structures is impossible without items (need synchrotron/forge and/or cores), even with Industrial Planning 2.  I like to see if meeting demand will be possible without items next release.

Re: easy core kill
Making core kill harder could make them defend against pirates easier.  Systems need to be able to defend themselves against the zombie pirates reliably.  Currently, pirates roll over core systems and eventually cause decivilization of worlds if player does not intervene.

Major factions look like scrubs when they sends all units (huge expedition fleets) against the player (and none against pirates or mortal enemies), and then the player comes over and rolls over a mostly undefended capital world.  Major factions should reserve their monster-sized expedition fleets as their system defense fleets.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 23, 2020, 07:29:27 AM
When assuming the overall colony balance stays more or less the same those nerfs aren't too substantial.
It's easy to make more than plenty of money (next to production capacity) from planets at least up to 200% hazard, and on top of that there aren't enough money sinks to justify looking for that perfect set of planets where you can make even more money. At least imo.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: RustyCabbage! on October 23, 2020, 08:29:52 AM
Quote
Reserve Deployment:
  • Now adds 1/2/3 fighters above max wing size and affects bombers as well
Can you clarify what this means? Is it 1/2/3 for ship sizes (destroyer/cruiser/capital ships), or maybe wing size (1-2/3-4/5-6), or something else entirely?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Anvel on October 23, 2020, 09:41:45 AM
 A lot of complaints about colony sizes and industry changes, but don't you guys agreed that in the carent version colony's way too overpowered and too rewarding, that game aspect had to be changed so...
   
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 23, 2020, 09:43:21 AM
Did it become much easier for players to gain reputation? If so, will we get more options to spend reputation for more goodies?
Since the player can't directly control Automated Ships....... will there be a hullmod to allow it?
Is Personal Contacts the last blogpost before 0.9.5 release?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 23, 2020, 10:27:00 AM
A lot of complaints about colony sizes and industry changes, but don't you guys agreed that in the carent version colony's way too overpowered and too rewarding, that game aspect had to be changed so...
Max colony skills and no cores gives about a million per month.  That is enough to rebuild ships I lose and add another structure.  Thanks to Pather bug (and easy-bribe Hegemony), building nearly unlimited large colonies is profitable and nearly risk-free.

Next release, I may need to use the overpriced Restore to preserve ships lost in battle instead of building new ships (because I need to spend two or three story points adding new permamods to each new ship built by Orbital Works).  Restore costs much more than building a new ship with Orbital Works.

The only problems with the current version is how fast colonies can grow to 10^7 or higher with both Free Port and max Growth Incentives, and the lack of space lord things to do that would cost big bucks or the resources of an army to do.  If I run planets and their resources, I like to do things on a more epic scale than a lone grunt fleet can do.  (Instead of my fleet chasing a buck to make ends meet, I hire fleets that need to chase a buck to make ends meet to do things I cannot be bothered doing, like killing all of the zombie pirate fleets decivilizing the core worlds.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 23, 2020, 10:58:43 AM
I'm wondering is there anything related to Doom-class in 0.95? ;) beside Tweaked Mine Strike ship system AI.

Hmm, nothing else that I can think of.


Being able to create a colony, build an industy, and then drop an item on it & instantly outcompete most of the sector for production feels like far more of an issue than a number not changing tbh.

Industry items are a flat bonus, which is disproportionately good early on.
Maybe it might be worth considering scaling the industry items boosts with the output of said industry?

Ah - I like the idea that you can find a pre-Collapse item of some sort, make a colony, and get a significant return on that right away. So this aspect of it is very much what's intended, though I don't think you'd be universally out-competing the Sector just off that alone. It might be ok with some amount of scaling, too - though that sort of thing would need to be on a per-item basis, probably - but I'm not sure that it's really necessary.


Anyways I forgot to ask one more thing. Will we get new ships in the simulator to test against? I know this is super minor and not important as the rest but it's nice to have a wider array of opponents you can test your build versus. Also please add the new combat ships to the random mission, thanks.

I *think* that's on my list of items to look at. One thing I half want to do is have the sim opponents be unlocked (and have that carry over across playthroughs), but that's more of a thing than just adding some, so... hm. I don't want to just load the sim opponents list with everything, you know? It's already got a ton of stuff in it.

And re: random mission - I'll see if I can have a look as well.


Pointing out this inconsistency between colony size and core elimination has two solutions...

I'm not so sure that "it's way harder to create something than to destroy it" is an actual inconsistency!

That said, just in general, the backstory is non-specific/vague enough that one could come up with plausible reasons for anything to make (or not make) sense. It just depends on the assumptions you make.



I wonder of a habitable planet will be required to use a forge (for unavoidable pollution), or if forge can be used anywhere and pollute only habitables.

At the moment, it's the latter.



Quote
Reserve Deployment:
  • Now adds 1/2/3 fighters above max wing size and affects bombers as well
Can you clarify what this means? Is it 1/2/3 for ship sizes (destroyer/cruiser/capital ships), or maybe wing size (1-2/3-4/5-6), or something else entirely?

Ah - yeah, it's based on wing size. 3 or less: +1, 4 or 5: +2, 6: +3.


Did it become much easier for players to gain reputation? If so, will we get more options to spend reputation for more goodies?

Hmm? I'm a bit confused as to where the question is coming from.

I suppose it's easier to get reputation just due to the contact mechanics and having more missions available. "Spending" reputation generally isn't a thing and the system isn't set up to use this as a currency (though of course it might come into play occasionally).

Since the player can't directly control Automated Ships....... will there be a hullmod to allow it?

I think that's come up earlier in this thread; the short version is "no" :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 23, 2020, 11:28:07 AM
I *think* that's on my list of items to look at. One thing I half want to do is have the sim opponents be unlocked (and have that carry over across playthroughs), but that's more of a thing than just adding some, so... hm. I don't want to just load the sim opponents list with everything, you know? It's already got a ton of stuff in it.

And re: random mission - I'll see if I can have a look as well.
Oh yeah I remember that suggestion about unlocking opponents, sounds interesting but obviously far more work. And I didn't think EVERY single ship should be in the simulator, just more types and varied opponents compared to 2 Lashers + 2 Lashers but with d-mods stuff we have now. Although personally it doesn't seem like it's "a ton" currently but I guess some of us got used to the simulator filled with mods where the list increases tenfold, so you hop back into vanilla and think "it's so small now awww".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 23, 2020, 11:53:21 AM
For more varied ships in the simulator, let player deploy his ships as enemies.  Had one release years ago that had a bug that did just that with some recovered ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 23, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
If you do get around to the simulator, one request I'd love to see is sim opponents with officers. Unskilled opponents, as you get further and further into a run, become less and less normative for the kind of opponents you'll be facing. The simplest solution (to me), would be to add two checkboxes: "Random officers" (RNG officers/skills on added opponents) and "Max Skill" that does just that (maybe without "Elite" skills coming up). While it would be kind of cool to fine-tune sim opponents, I imagine that would be a UI nightmare.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SarenSoran on October 23, 2020, 03:52:25 PM
so i just skimmed over it, are there no changes worth mentioning to autofit? because as it is right now its all over the place :'(
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 23, 2020, 04:34:22 PM
Re: simulator, various points noted!

so i just skimmed over it, are there no changes worth mentioning to autofit? because as it is right now its all over the place :'(

Hmm, could you be more specific? I recall fixing a few bugs and tweaking faction weapon availability (in particular, iirc, giving pirates more stuff so that their high-tech stations aren't so sad) but I'm not aware of any particular issues with autofit. Perhaps some of this is a difference in expectations? It's not supposed to produce highly optimized best-in-class variants; rather it's "generally a mix of halfway-reasonable stuff, with some variants that are fairly random". It does get more consistent/produce "better" outcome as fleet "quality" goes up, though... anyway, any more feedback here would be very much appreciated!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Half-full on October 23, 2020, 05:44:30 PM
Has there been any thought given to changing behavior for fleets that belong to not necessarily unified categories like pirates and independents? Right now all of their fleets share dispositions, but some fun emergent things can't happen if blowing up some pirates at one end of the core makes every group across the entire sector want you dead.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 23, 2020, 05:53:41 PM
Well - they won't go insta-hostile if your transponder is off, so I'm not sure any doors are actually closed there.

For all that it comes up fairly regularly, I think treating the reputation with pirates (and especially independents) as a block makes pretty good sense, given that 1) there are a lot of fleets, especially belonging to these factions, that won't make you go hostile regardless of transponder status (smugglers, scavengers, etc), and 2) you *can* turn the transponder off. Just in general, it makes sense that if you're known for taking out independent fleets, other independent operators - even if not directly involved with your targets - would be reeeeeal unhappy with you.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 23, 2020, 08:30:49 PM
Any plans to add more industries locked behind blueprints (like Planetary Shield)?
Are factions more or less likely to launch expeditions now?
Do [REDACTED] now attack systems of other factions? Can they be encountered in hyperspace?
Please add more danngers, encounters and TREASURE to hyperspace.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Piemanlives on October 24, 2020, 02:44:17 AM
Hmm, could you be more specific? I recall fixing a few bugs and tweaking faction weapon availability (in particular, iirc, giving pirates more stuff so that their high-tech stations aren't so sad) but I'm not aware of any particular issues with autofit. Perhaps some of this is a difference in expectations? It's not supposed to produce highly optimized best-in-class variants; rather it's "generally a mix of halfway-reasonable stuff, with some variants that are fairly random". It does get more consistent/produce "better" outcome as fleet "quality" goes up, though... anyway, any more feedback here would be very much appreciated!
There is perhaps quite a bit of difference in expectation. Many of us are still living with the memory of DynaSector and the incredibly dangerous and absurd fits it provided.

Now that said the current iteration of autofit does some... very silly and incredibly dumb things quite often. Like giving ships weapons they can't use effectively at all, such as giving slow ships short range weapons or downsizing mounts in ways that don't make sense (such as the larges on a Conquest).

It's basically to the point that often enough AI fleets simply aren't a threat because their loadouts don't work, or are only threatening because they have weight of numbers. I understand that you don't exactly plan to tune autofit to the point that it's always incredibly dangerous and daunting to even consider combat, but it really does need some fine tuning to give the AI more of a fighting chance.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 24, 2020, 03:16:40 AM
Downsizing by autofit in any way is almost bound to be a mistake.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bobucles on October 24, 2020, 09:05:14 AM
The size 6 planet limit seems to be pretty fair all around. It really takes too much game time to hit 8 or try going beyond that in an ordinary game. Still, it might be nice for various planet properties to increase or decrease that limit. Your average crappy post collapse colony might be a 6, but a neutron star might cripple it down to a 5. A super nice highly habitable gaia world can be a 7, and maybe a super rare planet terraforming tool could push it up to an 8? At that point the world would practically be the New Earth of the sector. In any event it would take real extreme circumstances to change a planet's limit, so it'd be the exception rather than the norm.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: grakkas on October 24, 2020, 12:17:36 PM
When can we expect a .95a realease? :O
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 24, 2020, 01:10:48 PM
Since the colony changes keep coming up, as well as the core planets being too much of a pushover, i just wondered if you think they become more resilient or less with all the changes? And are you filling up the extra colony slots that open up on various AI planets under the new rules? (and if so did you manually adjust total market values or did they "just" automatically increase a bit?) What about adding or upgrading their defences that aren't linked to colony size (like orbital and ground defences)?

As for planets/markets that really *could* use some buffing in my opinion: New Maxios comes to mind (maybe make it a battlestation?) as well as some of the pirate bases that only consist of a station. Would really help their believability to survive/be more or less permanent if they weren't under repair from facing random patrols half the time.
Luddic path also feels like it could use some help imo, not only to make it more believable that they can semi-permanently stay in control of their planets but also because there's such a big discrepancy between their power in the core and the power of their popup bases.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 24, 2020, 02:39:28 PM
Hmm, could you be more specific? I recall fixing a few bugs and tweaking faction weapon availability (in particular, iirc, giving pirates more stuff so that their high-tech stations aren't so sad) but I'm not aware of any particular issues with autofit. Perhaps some of this is a difference in expectations? It's not supposed to produce highly optimized best-in-class variants; rather it's "generally a mix of halfway-reasonable stuff, with some variants that are fairly random". It does get more consistent/produce "better" outcome as fleet "quality" goes up, though... anyway, any more feedback here would be very much appreciated!
There is perhaps quite a bit of difference in expectation. Many of us are still living with the memory of DynaSector and the incredibly dangerous and absurd fits it provided.

Now that said the current iteration of autofit does some... very silly and incredibly dumb things quite often. Like giving ships weapons they can't use effectively at all, such as giving slow ships short range weapons or downsizing mounts in ways that don't make sense (such as the larges on a Conquest).

It's basically to the point that often enough AI fleets simply aren't a threat because their loadouts don't work, or are only threatening because they have weight of numbers. I understand that you don't exactly plan to tune autofit to the point that it's always incredibly dangerous and daunting to even consider combat, but it really does need some fine tuning to give the AI more of a fighting chance.
Downsizing by autofit in any way is almost bound to be a mistake.

I appreciate the added detail! I guess in my mind, "autofit" and "what the default fleet inflater tells autofit is available to use" are two different things, but it makes sense that it's not... a very player-facing distinction. I'll take another look; pretty much all cases of downsizing for example (or using a short range weapon when the base loadout uses a long-range one) is due to nothing better being flagged as available. I've made some notes and will take a look shortly.


When can we expect a .95a realease? :O

When it's ready, of course :)

The size 6 planet limit seems to be pretty fair all around. It really takes too much game time to hit 8 or try going beyond that in an ordinary game. Still, it might be nice for various planet properties to increase or decrease that limit. Your average crappy post collapse colony might be a 6, but a neutron star might cripple it down to a 5. A super nice highly habitable gaia world can be a 7, and maybe a super rare planet terraforming tool could push it up to an 8? At that point the world would practically be the New Earth of the sector. In any event it would take real extreme circumstances to change a planet's limit, so it'd be the exception rather than the norm.

Hmm. I could see perhaps hazard rating changing the size limit - but then there are some ways to manipulate the hazard rating now, so I think the "soft" natural limit (based on growth penalties from hazard, but over-comeable via hazard pay) might be an easier fit.


Since the colony changes keep coming up, as well as the core planets being too much of a pushover, i just wondered if you think they become more resilient or less with all the changes? ...  What about adding or upgrading their defences that aren't linked to colony size (like orbital and ground defences)?

I think they're in about the same place. Just in general, I'm not particularly concerned about this aspect of things. The core worlds need to be reasonably vulnerable to things like sneaking around, smuggling, raids, and so on; that's more important imo than their overall reslience/power level vs endgame fleets. It's not like taking them down is any sort of goal (other than self-imposed), and they're not the toughest challenge in the game anyway, so it's just... not something that I think will matter very much in the long run, not when there will at some point be a "proper" endgame to focus on. And based on the requirements of that, they may end up getting tuned up or down defense/power-wise! But right now, there's nothing actually meaningful to balance them around, if that makes sense.

And are you filling up the extra colony slots that open up on various AI planets under the new rules? (and if so did you manually adjust total market values or did they "just" automatically increase a bit?)

Definitely not! Just a few items here and there where they were absolutely needed to make the default economy's ends meet. I'd like to keep as many of the items as possible a fun surprise, not, "oh, it's that thing I already saw on some core colony".
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 24, 2020, 03:19:41 PM

Definitely not! Just a few items here and there where they were absolutely needed to make the default economy's ends meet. I'd like to keep as many of the items as possible a fun surprise, not, "oh, it's that thing I already saw on some core colony".

Ah yeah, not filling them with items makes perfect sense, but i was thinking more of industry slots. Since 4 slots will be available at size 6 instead of 7 now for instance, and 2 available from the start. (so if all the core planets stay the same size a lot of them could get an extra industry according to the rules)
It makes sense that you don't want to fool around with that too much either though, with the whole thing being more or less balanced as it is.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 24, 2020, 03:25:21 PM
Ah, I see what you meant not, sorry I misunderstood! Yeah, they're more or less as-is; the stuff found on the core colonies is for 1) making the Sector economy work out and 2) flavor. It doesn't really need to be "optimized according to the rules" because it's not a symmetric 4x type of situation, you know?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on October 24, 2020, 06:03:26 PM
I have literally never taken ships from the pirates. Anything with defects is automatic trash, and you get enough money in the first thirty minutes of a game to finance a small carrier fleet.

That's quite a self-harming way of playing the game.
There are plenty of D-mods that have not-too bad or even insignificant (or rarely even completely irrelevant) penalties, and all d-mods have the positive effect of making ships cheaper supplies-wise (even more so with the relevant skill), so deciding to automatically decline salvage on anything just because it has a d-mod and then spending your resources on buying ships (which is highly inefficient) is just shooting yourself in the foot for literally no reason. I'd understand playing like that as a pride-themed challenge run, at best.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Optymistyk on October 25, 2020, 05:29:25 AM
Oh yes finally I am more excited for this than for christmass  :D

Can you drop a hint if there's any substantial changes for colony management in the works? It's probably my fav part of the game
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 25, 2020, 05:49:43 AM
Oh yes finally I am more excited for this than for christmass  :D

Can you drop a hint if there's any substantial changes for colony management in the works? It's probably my fav part of the game
There might be some, Alex tends to update patchnotes once or twice.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 25, 2020, 08:35:40 AM
I've noticed that enemy fighter LPCs on carriers with the Reserve Deployment ability do not self-destruct as the mothership retreats from the battlefield, leading to some rather annoying time after all enemy ships retreated, like in this case:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/pPELVJP.png)
[close]

You guys might want to look into that as you nerf Reserve Deplyment (unless you've already fixed it and I did not spot it in the patch notes). I've also had it happen with a Drover using Broadswords and a modder (SafariJohn) confirmed it seems to be originating from Vanilla. It should be fairly easy to reproduce in a real battle scenario.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 25, 2020, 08:43:45 AM
Alex, how many colonies do you think a no admin skills player should have (as of 0.9.5a)?

Please clarify for Megas, is Converted Fighter Bays only for ships with built-in wings like Sunder or does it work for every carrier?

It would be nice if Admin skills can be made elite just like combat skills. In addition, players can spend story points on an Admin to make one of their skills elite, cryopod admins might start with one skill already elite, Alpha cores have three elite admin skills.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 09:22:10 AM
Oh yes finally I am more excited for this than for christmass  :D

:D

Can you drop a hint if there's any substantial changes for colony management in the works? It's probably my fav part of the game

Hmm - you mean beyond what's already in the patch notes (a bunch of new items, "make improvements", size changes, cryosleeper having a range, etc)? I think that about sums it up colony-wise for this release.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 25, 2020, 09:27:24 AM
Ah, I see what you meant not, sorry I misunderstood! Yeah, they're more or less as-is; the stuff found on the core colonies is for 1) making the Sector economy work out and 2) flavor. It doesn't really need to be "optimized according to the rules" because it's not a symmetric 4x type of situation, you know?

Yeah makes perfect sense. The only thing that really changed is that you have the *opportunity* to make changes without them breaking the rules that apply to player colonies if you desire. Nothing saying you have to use that opportunity if you feel they're already in a good spot.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaizai on October 25, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
First of all, thanks for all your hard work, I can't wait to try the game out!
I know the patch is gonna drop when it's ready and I'm not gonna ask that...however if you could respond to these simple questions i bet it would make lots of people happy :p   
-Ignoring that things can be added or changed or take more time than expected, what do you feel right now is your current progress on the patch? (50%, 90% etc)     
-Compared to previous patches, do you feel you released these patch notes as early in development as those? or did you wait until you were closer to release? 
 
One thing about the game, i would LOVE to have a way to disable CR degradation for the flagship, sometimes i enjoy taking my time and fighting unwinnable battles by slowly taking the edge, however CR heavily hinders this kind of gameplay and instead i feel forced to play in a way i don't really like. I'm fine with the fleet having it for balance purposes, but it really bums me out when i'm almost about to win an extremely difficult and long fight, just for my CR to run out :( (yes, even with the cr upgrade). What about an upgrade that progressively decrease CR usage for the flagship? so if you choose to go that route, you'd have to actually waste points on it, making your flagship immune to cr degradation at max level, but overall weaker/with a weaker fleet. Or maybe even adding some flux penalty to that upgrade/making it impossible to reach CR degradation immunity on phase ships.
Thanks again for your amazing work

 

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AsterPiano on October 25, 2020, 10:29:01 AM
I've thought about the gameplay implications of these notes a bit more, focused around this change
Quote
Increased XP gain from fighting more challenging battles; up to 500% more XP gained

Fleet Combat 'Efficiency' will now be significantly more important. Combat XP is now not only based around the strength of the fleets you destroy, but also around how efficiently you have designed your fleet.
XP now also has the added importance of gaining you Story Points, in addition to the already important Skill Points.

These changes add a new meaning to picking player Combat Skills, in the current 0.9.1a patch they can massively increase your fleet's combat efficiency - especially in the early game/for small fleets where you have very few combat ships - but with 0.95a's changes they further give a boost to XP gain and now by extension, Story Point gain.
(assuming Combat Skills are equally as good as they were previously, a well piloted player ship with full combat skills can increase the ship's effectiveness tenfold)
These changes definitely encourage players to try maximising the efficiency of a smaller fleet through carefully designed fleet strategy and loadouts in order to fight bigger fleets (going 'taller' kinda), as opposed to getting more/bigger combat ships and focusing more on numbers (going 'wider'), which I think is especially good since big fleets for new players can be frustrating to manage the logistics of; they often end up being slow and expensive.
Also more than before you're discouraged from going after easy targets, and encouraged to go after larger targets where you can make full use of all of your combat ships.

Quote
Story point uses include (but are not limited to):
  • "Piloted ship" skills can be raised to "elite" level, unlocking an additional effect
  • Building a limited number of permanent hullmods into ships, making the cost 0 ordnance points
  • Officers: Can raise one skill to "elite" level (story point)
Speaking of Story points, these additions give the player more ways to spend resources on their fleet to further tune its effectiveness in combat and affect combat XP. However, depending on how the equation works, using these features could increase the "fleet strength" value of your fleet, which could make them less worthwhile. (Although using story points does grant bonus XP anyway, so it might cancel itself out)

Another implication that I find interesting is, the player already has a choice to forgo logistics in order to increase the fleet's overall combat efficiency, and the change of "more XP from challenging battles" adds to the already existing dynamic of Combat vs Logistics by asking Combat-focused fleets the question "Do you want to focus on Combat XP, or do you want more space for Salvage?", which adds extra playstyle options even among Combat focused fleets.

Quote
Cargo Pods: cheaper to stabilize, stabilization adds 400 days (was: 150)
This also supports the idea of removing cargo ships to increase combat efficiency to some extent, as it makes it easier for the player to pick up all of the cargo they couldn't at a later time. (Also generally.. I'm quite happy about the prospect of stabilising cargo pods being less costly and more effective, big fan of this change!)

However, I have a few worries about this change to combat XP, depending on how the equation works for deciding on the strength of a fleet. For example if the number of officers in your fleet strongly affects the "strength" of your fleet for the purposes of combat XP calculation, then it could discourage hiring low level officers. If it scales with the level of the officer, it could discourage the use of officers overall (however, even if the scaling was punishing it would at least give you a choice of more Combat XP vs more pure fleet strength).
However, if the "fleet strength" value does scale with your fleet officers' levels, that also raises the worrying question of "Does your Player Combat Skills Level affect "fleet strength" ? I personally think this would be a mistake as it further discourages players from trying Combat Skills if they think they're bad at piloting ships.
Some more questions, does having more/more expensive weapons equipped on ships increase the player's "fleet strength" value? Does having less dmods increase the value?

Of course, all of this depends on how exactly the equation will work, and what the purpose of the change is. Since I don't know I'm just making assumptions about what it could be. It could scale with your officer levels but only a little bit, so that it's still better to have officers than not (as long as you use them). I guess there's a lot of unknowns here so I began thinking about the (in my opinion) worst case scenarios.
As far as I can tell, the main purpose of the change is either to reward the player for their skill (in piloting/ordering and planning/loading out their fleet),
or to reward the player for their skill and all the resources they put into making their fleet more combat effective.
I guess my question comes down to: Is that the case? And if so, which is it? (Although I can understand if you don't want to share exactly how it'll work; people are bound to take the equation and minmax their gameplay choices around its quirks)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 25, 2020, 10:53:58 AM
Sorry, did not read all 28 pages of discussion.

I like all changes except for inability to bribe Hegemony's inspectors without spending story points. Its just pointless. Story points will be limited resource (if i get it correctly), so, it will be way easier to eliminate entire Hegemony than going home every time to retrieve cores till inspection is done.

Also, an idea: Hegemony tells you that they will come with inspection... but dont tell which colony they want to check. For example, inspector secretly picks one planet and has a chance to pick second one if player has big number of worlds (more than 4, i guess...).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 25, 2020, 10:56:36 AM
Ah yes this reminded me, can we have inspections remember the last choice we picked? For example If I say my colony to retaliate, can it do that next time too, instead of just allowing them to take all cores? Obviously we'd still get the message, I'm just talking about scenarios where you forget about the notification.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 25, 2020, 12:16:53 PM
Sorry, did not read all 28 pages of discussion.

I like all changes except for inability to bribe Hegemony's inspectors without spending story points. Its just pointless. Story points will be limited resource (if i get it correctly), so, it will be way easier to eliminate entire Hegemony than going home every time to retrieve cores till inspection is done.

Also, an idea: Hegemony tells you that they will come with inspection... but dont tell which colony they want to check. For example, inspector secretly picks one planet and has a chance to pick second one if player has big number of worlds (more than 4, i guess...).
Story points are renewable.  Do not know how quickly player can earn enough XP to level up beyond max for more story points.

If I plan to use cores (to build an empire), purging the Hegemony may become a very attractive option.

However, if I am willing to stop what I do and rush home to grab cores, it is better to intercept the inspection fleet and kill it.

Inspection that does not tell which colony Hegemony checks would be evil.  I would sat bomb Hegemony off the map to eliminate that headache.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 12:50:29 PM
First of all, thanks for all your hard work, I can't wait to try the game out!
I know the patch is gonna drop when it's ready and I'm not gonna ask that...however if you could respond to these simple questions i bet it would make lots of people happy :p   
-Ignoring that things can be added or changed or take more time than expected, what do you feel right now is your current progress on the patch? (50%, 90% etc)     
-Compared to previous patches, do you feel you released these patch notes as early in development as those? or did you wait until you were closer to release? 

Ahh, I'm afraid that would be more or less answering the same question as the one you're not asking :) I'll just say, most of what remains is some reasonable amount of story content, a bunch of random QoL/modding items, a few assorted odds and ends, and a bunch of playtesting.
 
 
One thing about the game, i would LOVE to have a way to disable CR degradation for the flagship, sometimes i enjoy taking my time and fighting unwinnable battles by slowly taking the edge, however CR heavily hinders this kind of gameplay and instead i feel forced to play in a way i don't really like. I'm fine with the fleet having it for balance purposes, but it really bums me out when i'm almost about to win an extremely difficult and long fight, just for my CR to run out :( (yes, even with the cr upgrade). What about an upgrade that progressively decrease CR usage for the flagship? so if you choose to go that route, you'd have to actually waste points on it, making your flagship immune to cr degradation at max level, but overall weaker/with a weaker fleet. Or maybe even adding some flux penalty to that upgrade/making it impossible to reach CR degradation immunity on phase ships.
Thanks again for your amazing work

Hmm - much like you're saying you feel "forced" into not playing this way, the flip side is if what you're asking for *was* an option, other players would feel forced to use it, since "use a single ship to take a long time to win a fight" is more efficient. And having to do this on the regular would not, I think, be good for the game. I'd suggest, personally, just editing the Hardened Subsystems hullmod in your game to adjust it to your preference. That one's actually easy - doesn't require compiling anything etc; you can just edit data/hullmods/HardenedSubsystems and change the peak time modifier to what you want. That's affect AI ships too, but in your particular case that doesn't seem like it'd be a problem.


I've thought about the gameplay implications of these notes a bit more, focused around this change

I think this is a really good, deep analysis; thank you for sharing it!

These changes add a new meaning to picking player Combat Skills, in the current 0.9.1a patch they can massively increase your fleet's combat efficiency - especially in the early game/for small fleets where you have very few combat ships - but with 0.95a's changes they further give a boost to XP gain and now by extension, Story Point gain.

Hadn't considered that! But, this seems good overall.


Quote
Cargo Pods: cheaper to stabilize, stabilization adds 400 days (was: 150)
This also supports the idea of removing cargo ships to increase combat efficiency to some extent, as it makes it easier for the player to pick up all of the cargo they couldn't at a later time. (Also generally.. I'm quite happy about the prospect of stabilising cargo pods being less costly and more effective, big fan of this change!)

*thumbs up*


However, I have a few worries about this change to combat XP, depending on how the equation works for deciding on the strength of a fleet. For example if the number of officers in your fleet strongly affects the "strength" of your fleet for the purposes of combat XP calculation, then it could discourage hiring low level officers. If it scales with the level of the officer, it could discourage the use of officers overall (however, even if the scaling was punishing it would at least give you a choice of more Combat XP vs more pure fleet strength).
However, if the "fleet strength" value does scale with your fleet officers' levels, that also raises the worrying question of "Does your Player Combat Skills Level affect "fleet strength" ? I personally think this would be a mistake as it further discourages players from trying Combat Skills if they think they're bad at piloting ships.
Some more questions, does having more/more expensive weapons equipped on ships increase the player's "fleet strength" value? Does having less dmods increase the value?

Of course, all of this depends on how exactly the equation will work, and what the purpose of the change is. Since I don't know I'm just making assumptions about what it could be. It could scale with your officer levels but only a little bit, so that it's still better to have officers than not (as long as you use them). I guess there's a lot of unknowns here so I began thinking about the (in my opinion) worst case scenarios.
As far as I can tell, the main purpose of the change is either to reward the player for their skill (in piloting/ordering and planning/loading out their fleet),
or to reward the player for their skill and all the resources they put into making their fleet more combat effective.
I guess my question comes down to: Is that the case? And if so, which is it? (Although I can understand if you don't want to share exactly how it'll work; people are bound to take the equation and minmax their gameplay choices around its quirks)

Right, yeah; this is a good thing to think about, vis a vis "does this change encourage weird gameplay patterns". I'd be lying if I said I'd considered every detail (this was, to be honest, kind of an impulsive addition based on a suggestion from, iirc, Gothars), but!

I think overall having more/better officers will always be good - they do reduce the difficulty of the fight, but I think not to the point where it's better not to have them. It'd be pretty much impossible to do anything real meaningful without them. And, while officer level/presence matters here, it matters less than e.g. for deployment points distribution, so it shouldn't discourage putting officers in small ships. Player level - rather than specifically combat skills - factors in here, but, again, it's not an overwhelming factor. Weapons/dmods etc don't factor in; it's based off the base deployment points of a hull and officer levels. Again, though, I don't think it's something where trying to optimize out a dmod or two would make much difference.

(Officers that aren't assigned to a ship still count, since otherwise you'd be encouraged to unassign officers you're not planning to use in the fight... made that change just now, actually, since wasn't thinking about that aspect of it before.)

Overall, the hope is this is something that's worth playing around on the macro level - in terms overall fleet size/composition/engagement choices - but not on a micro level, trying to wring an extra couple of percent out of it.


I like all changes except for inability to bribe Hegemony's inspectors without spending story points. Its just pointless. Story points will be limited resource (if i get it correctly), so, it will be way easier to eliminate entire Hegemony than going home every time to retrieve cores till inspection is done.

Also, an idea: Hegemony tells you that they will come with inspection... but dont tell which colony they want to check. For example, inspector secretly picks one planet and has a chance to pick second one if player has big number of worlds (more than 4, i guess...).

That'd just make it impossible to prep for, no?

What I want to look at is making inspections etc more rare, though...



Ah yes this reminded me, can we have inspections remember the last choice we picked? For example If I say my colony to retaliate, can it do that next time too, instead of just allowing them to take all cores? Obviously we'd still get the message, I'm just talking about scenarios where you forget about the notification.

Tn that theoretical example, it'd do that already, right? Since you'd get auto-hostile for resisting. I don't think that defaulting to the option that makes you auto-hostile (when you're not already hostile) is a good idea.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Grievous69 on October 25, 2020, 01:08:57 PM
Ah yes this reminded me, can we have inspections remember the last choice we picked? For example If I say my colony to retaliate, can it do that next time too, instead of just allowing them to take all cores? Obviously we'd still get the message, I'm just talking about scenarios where you forget about the notification.

Tn that theoretical example, it'd do that already, right? Since you'd get auto-hostile for resisting. I don't think that defaulting to the option that makes you auto-hostile (when you're not already hostile) is a good idea.
Well yeah being the default option would be kinda silly. Didn't know it automatically made you hostile no matter what your relation is, I always thought it was a big flat penalty like -50 or something. But I'm sure this happened to me. Could it be that the first time I resisted them they became hostile but I somehow raised relations through missions and other stuff so the next option defaulted to the peace one? If such a thing can happen then honestly I don't know what makes more sense, seeing how you already made them angry once, then again, a player might try repairing those relations. Ehh you're probably right in the end (even tho the Hegemony deserves no mercy  :)) )
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 01:11:08 PM
But I'm sure this happened to me. Could it be that the first time I resisted them they became hostile but I somehow raised relations through missions and other stuff so the next option defaulted to the peace one?

Yeah, that sounds plausible, since you'd be in "just barely hostile" territory at that point and even a minor rep gain would get you back out of it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 25, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Quote
Story points are renewable.  Do not know how quickly player can earn enough XP to level up beyond max for more story points.
If progression is the same as it is now (just scaled a bit to fit 15 max level cap) it will be very hard to get a lot of extra points.
Quote
That'd just make it impossible to prep for, no?
Yes. But you can try to guess, or, maybe, just use AIs on some planets (not all of them). Or visit all planets and remove all cores, lol. It gives some options.

Also, many people dont want to babysit anyway. So, there will be no difference for them.

For me the only reason to keep Heg alive is the fact that they have size 8 colony (which will not be achievable on player's worlds anymore (but i hope there will be possibilities like really low threat level, story points, quests, etc.)). In new rule system it will be a miracle which i just dont want to destroy.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 25, 2020, 02:38:05 PM
Quote
If progression is the same as it is now (just scaled a bit to fit 15 max level cap) it will be very hard to get a lot of extra points.
Maybe, depending how much fighting against endgame fleets player will do.  Leveling a few times past 40 now may not be not too slow, but things slow down quite a bit past 50.

If I want to use cores, it is most likely to expand my empire, that is use them as admins.  I do not want to guess where big H will hit next (at least not without an Intel bug) among dozens of alpha-run worlds.  If I need to guess where big H will hit next (and chances of success are low and result of failure is bad stuff happening), I will stop that nonsense by wiping them off the map.

As for 10^8 miracle, having them as an enemy (because they cannot mind their own business) is more of an incentive to wipe them off the map.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 25, 2020, 03:11:28 PM
Any chance that there'll be a way to administrate more colonies without having to resort to AI cores at some relatively quick point? I get that colonizing isn't the intended end goal and all, but it never struck me as sensible that some AI colonies can be administrated by a blank portrait saying "no one of particular note" (or some such) whereas your colonies not only must be administrated by someone, but that (given enough skill points invested) four of them can simultaneously be administrated as well as an Alpha Core - and only an Alpha Core -  can administrate one planet, by someone exploring the galaxy on the other end of the sector.

Not that having to, you know, basically retire and sit at your colonies to administrate them would be a very fun mechanic, but it's still bizarre every time I think about it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on October 25, 2020, 03:30:07 PM
Right, yeah; this is a good thing to think about, vis a vis "does this change encourage weird gameplay patterns". I'd be lying if I said I'd considered every detail (this was, to be honest, kind of an impulsive addition based on a suggestion from, iirc, Gothars), but!

I think overall having more/better officers will always be good - they do reduce the difficulty of the fight, but I think not to the point where it's better not to have them. It'd be pretty much impossible to do anything real meaningful without them. And, while officer level/presence matters here, it matters less than e.g. for deployment points distribution, so it shouldn't discourage putting officers in small ships. Player level - rather than specifically combat skills - factors in here, but, again, it's not an overwhelming factor. Weapons/dmods etc don't factor in; it's based off the base deployment points of a hull and officer levels. Again, though, I don't think it's something where trying to optimize out a dmod or two would make much difference.

(Officers that aren't assigned to a ship still count, since otherwise you'd be encouraged to unassign officers you're not planning to use in the fight... made that change just now, actually, since wasn't thinking about that aspect of it before.)

Overall, the hope is this is something that's worth playing around on the macro level - in terms overall fleet size/composition/engagement choices - but not on a micro level, trying to wring an extra couple of percent out of it.

I agree that TheLochNessCheeseBurger has a really good analysis.

To the point on officers, I'd say it won't matter if more officers are technically unattractive to get more XP as long as there are threats that essentially require them to beat. To this end, it will largely depend upon how strong combat skills are. If they make piloting skills impactful enough that the officer bonuses aren't needed for high level challenges, yeah I could see this becoming an issue for design.

Imo, there is always going to be a "most efficient" strategy to things and that is likely unavoidable. As long as there are situations where that doesn't hold true, I think that's fine.

A good thing about avoiding officers early, if this proves to be the case, is that it indirectly encourages players to learn to pilot better without stat boosts right out of the gate. It also means that additional fleet complexity is indirectly discouraged early on - which allows players more time to choose a playstyle.

If you have 3 officers with carrier skills, for instance, you are encouraged to play with carriers more than warships. In that sense, getting specialized officers too early somewhat limits an early player's desire to explore different ships and builds.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 25, 2020, 03:37:04 PM

I like all changes except for inability to bribe Hegemony's inspectors without spending story points.

this change makes a lot more sense from a narrative perspective , imo.

Any chance that there'll be a way to administrate more colonies without having to resort to AI cores at some relatively quick point? I get that colonizing isn't the intended end goal and all, but it never struck me as sensible that some AI colonies can be administrated by a blank portrait saying "no one of particular note" (or some such) whereas your colonies not only must be administrated by someone, but that (given enough skill points invested) four of them can simultaneously be administrated as well as an Alpha Core - and only an Alpha Core -  can administrate one planet, by someone exploring the galaxy on the other end of the sector.

Not that having to, you know, basically retire and sit at your colonies to administrate them would be a very fun mechanic, but it's still bizarre every time I think about it.

it is kind of funny that a artificial super intelligence can be outskilled in governing by a normal human
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 25, 2020, 04:06:20 PM
it is kind of funny that a artificial super intelligence can be outskilled in governing by a normal human

Reality is unrealistic.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 25, 2020, 04:07:14 PM
Quote
If I want to use cores, it is most likely to expand my empire, that is use them as admins.  I do not want to guess where big H will hit next (at least not without an Intel bug) among dozens of alpha-run worlds.  If I need to guess where big H will hit next (and chances of success are low and result of failure is bad stuff happening), I will stop that nonsense by wiping them off the map.
For me essential usage of cores is Alpha-boosted spaceports. Other stuff is optional. Also... if max colony size will be 6, maybe i dont need Alphas in spaceports too. I mean: size 6 is pretty achievable without any effort (even if the progression will be scaled so size 6 will demand same time as size 8 demands now... if more - than ok, we still need some growth buffs).

About secret inspections: what if we dont know what colony will be checked, but if we have contacts in Heg we can ask them about that?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ChardonnayDreams on October 25, 2020, 05:28:29 PM
Any thoughts on maybe toning down pirate raids to coincide with their buff to their minimum base modules and nerf to bounties when it comes to starting a colony in the early game?

I find after a pirate raid, they continously raid even if theyve suceeded several times in a row, it would be nice to either pay them protection or have a longer cooldown between raids. P I struggle to stabilize expending so much resources and time in defending my colony. Especially considering I find I get tied down to it very quickly.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 25, 2020, 05:40:56 PM
If they make piloting skills impactful enough that the officer bonuses aren't needed for high level challenges, yeah I could see this becoming an issue for design.

Officer skills are the same as piloting skills though, at least when not considering elite skills (of which officers can also get one with mentoring), meaning that they're roughly the same force multiplier on your officers as on yourself.

Anyway Alex said he was aiming to make the FP increase small enough to make officers worth it even in smaller ships (from the perspective of min-maxing this XP formula), it almost certainly follow from that that they'll definetly be worth it when you assign them to bigger ships.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: bowman on October 25, 2020, 06:08:51 PM
If they don't already, Hegemony should send AI check expeditions even when the player isn't using AI cores as both a heads-up to new players that "hey if you use these those inspections are going to find them" and also because then they can be rarer per-day but the time over which they'd show up would be doubled or maybe tripled depending on when the player settles. As a result, you'd have to deal with less expeditions that actually affect you but they wouldn't be so rare as to be forgotten.

In fact, I'd say they should function similarly to ejecting illegal goods right before a patrol inspects you:
Removing cores leaves evidence depending on core type for x months (3, or variable 2+2 per core rank?) that Hegemony still picks up on. From my PoV, flying back to remove the cores before an inspection is both unfun and a bit of an exploit (since it seems to me the intent is that you either bribe or fight them if you're going to use cores, and in the next version bribe will function much better since it will be story point cost and thus not just a $ in versus $ out calculation).

Alternatively, in parallel with the evidence changes, expeditions could be a cyclical thing (so it doesn't pop up when you're doing other things and you can thus plan around it long-term) that always go out every, say, 4 years or so and then evidence would last much longer- or maybe be permanent. "While the efficiency gains AI cores are capable of are impossible for a human to do, there are obvious traces left within any system actively or previously imbued with one. A core must reach its tendrils into every nook and cranny of a network to reap their effects and the patterns created in production lines as a result of their influence are widely known, and easily identifiable, but poorly understood.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ProfessionalHuman on October 25, 2020, 06:25:04 PM
About secret inspections: what if we dont know what colony will be checked, but if we have contacts in Heg we can ask them about that?

Imagine exploring distant part of the sector and getting a message about inspection and needing to travel 40ly+ just to ask your contact about where the inspection is going. That would be super annoying.

Also, it feels kind of strange to me that we can get messages through a comms relay anywhere in the sector, but cant send any message back. It would be great if it was possible to get access to colony/station main menu (menu that opens after you dock to it) and contacts remotely. Some mods even put some vital functions in these menus.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 25, 2020, 06:25:39 PM
AI Inspections even if you don't have cores is a great idea IMO

There's already a rep penalty AFAIK if you had cores but yanked them before the Hegs showed up.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 25, 2020, 06:42:05 PM
it is kind of funny that a artificial super intelligence can be outskilled in governing by a normal human

Reality is unrealistic.

what
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Linnis on October 25, 2020, 07:10:42 PM
it is kind of funny that a artificial super intelligence can be outskilled in governing by a normal human

Reality is unrealistic.

what

depends on the AI. They are "smarter" than humans because they can learn in simulations ultra fast. But you tell an combat trained AI that you plucked from a spaceship and tell it to govern millions of people it might not be so smart then.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Silveressa on October 25, 2020, 07:41:35 PM
Is there any place for us to download the 0.95a in progress version to check it out first hand?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: shoi on October 25, 2020, 07:44:53 PM

depends on the AI. They are "smarter" than humans because they can learn in simulations ultra fast. But you tell an combat trained AI that you plucked from a spaceship and tell it to govern millions of people it might not be so smart then.

if that what he meant, it still doesnt make sense

Quote
An alpha-level AI core is capable of excelling at any task. Assigning one to run a colony-wide industry brings benefits well beyond the capacity of human leadership, and there are even rumors of alpha cores surreptitiously assigned to govern entire worlds.

not that I mind or anything on how it actually operates in game
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 25, 2020, 08:19:14 PM
Maybe the Alpha AI refuses to use all it's capabilities for you or it cannot do so because it's not given powerful enough hardware?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 08:53:40 PM
Any chance that there'll be a way to administrate more colonies without having to resort to AI cores at some relatively quick point? I get that colonizing isn't the intended end goal and all ...

I can't really see doing that, no. As you say, that's not an intended goal, so I don't see a reason to develop in that direction only to need to cut it back down at some point. I mean, had to do that with colony size (pretty much knowing initially that size 10 would never stay as the limit), and look how much discussion that caused. Ha!

... but it never struck me as sensible that some AI colonies can be administrated by a blank portrait saying "no one of particular note" (or some such) whereas your colonies not only must be administrated by someone

The "blank portrait" is more or less equivalent to the "no skills admin" you can hire, so at most that's a UI issue :)

... but that (given enough skill points invested) four of them can simultaneously be administrated as well as an Alpha Core - and only an Alpha Core -  can administrate one planet, by someone exploring the galaxy on the other end of the sector.

Consider that with an Alpha Core, there's a question of trust. There's the core, giving instructions for the optimal and perfect running of a colony, probably. And there's the human overseers, trying to figure out which of the core's instruction *may*, in roundabout and entirely unexpected ways, lead to Bad Things.


A good thing about avoiding officers early, if this proves to be the case ...

Just want to note that I'd be very surprised if this proved to be the case. Combat skills are great and all but you need some numbers on your side, too.


Any thoughts on maybe toning down pirate raids to coincide with their buff to their minimum base modules and nerf to bounties when it comes to starting a colony in the early game?

I find after a pirate raid, they continously raid even if theyve suceeded several times in a row, it would be nice to either pay them protection or have a longer cooldown between raids. P I struggle to stabilize expending so much resources and time in defending my colony. Especially considering I find I get tied down to it very quickly.

The continuous raids are a bug, actually - fixed for the next release! I think it's in the patch notes somewhere.


If they don't already, Hegemony should send AI check expeditions even when the player isn't using AI cores as both a heads-up to new players that "hey if you use these those inspections are going to find them"

What, and ruin the surprise? I get what you're saying, but since bribing is still an option, I don't think the player really needs to be explicitly warned ahead of time.


In fact, I'd say they should function similarly to ejecting illegal goods right before a patrol inspects you:
Removing cores leaves evidence depending on core type for x months (3, or variable 2+2 per core rank?) that Hegemony still picks up on. From my PoV, flying back to remove the cores before an inspection is both unfun and a bit of an exploit (since it seems to me the intent is that you either bribe or fight them if you're going to use cores, and in the next version bribe will function much better since it will be story point cost and thus not just a $ in versus $ out calculation).

Yeah, removing cores prior to the inspection already doesn't work! IIRC you'll still lose them if they're in colony storage, and if not, there are a lot more reputation penalties since they suspect you did this.


Is there any place for us to download the 0.95a in progress version to check it out first hand?

Nope, sorry! It's not in an enjoyably playable state, anyway; you'd be surprised at how late in the dev cycle everything actually comes together to the degree that it makes any sense to have someone outside the dev team play it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Silveressa on October 25, 2020, 08:57:23 PM

Nope, sorry! It's not in an enjoyably playable state, anyway; you'd be surprised at how late in the dev cycle everything actually comes together to the degree that it makes any sense to have someone outside the dev team play it.

That's completely understandable, thanks for the swift reply,  8) Is there a rough release date on the horizon for 9.5? (As in before xmas, sometime 1Q 2021 etc..)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 09:02:14 PM
Sorry to keep saying no, but - it's strictly on a "when it's ready" basis :) Basically, it's hard to estimate right, and if I don't, then there'll be pressure on me to release earlier than I'm comfortable with (that is, before it's quite there), and that's just not a road I want to go down. I get that some people would understand that it's just an estimate (present company included etc), but if a date got out, it'd spread around and become "the date" without any nuance. (Also, internally, there isn't a date! See: it being hard to accurately estimate.)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Silveressa on October 25, 2020, 09:11:25 PM
Sorry to keep saying no, but - it's strictly on a "when it's ready" basis :)

Thanks for the in depth explanation, I see how it turning into a pressure to release could lead to rushed bug hunting and a hot mess of an update, you're right it's a smart move keeping it open ended. The new update looks great, one of the main things I ran into in previous play throughs was a lack of stuff to do once I hit end game, the new storyline additions should certainly help out a lot with that, really looking forward to it!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2020, 09:25:34 PM
:D Thank you for understanding!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 26, 2020, 02:16:15 AM
I've noticed that enemy fighter LPCs on carriers with the Reserve Deployment ability do not self-destruct as the mothership retreats from the battlefield, leading to some rather annoying time after all enemy ships retreated, like in this case:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/pPELVJP.png)
[close]

You guys might want to look into that as you nerf Reserve Deplyment (unless you've already fixed it and I did not spot it in the patch notes). I've also had it happen with a Drover using Broadswords and a modder (SafariJohn) confirmed it seems to be originating from Vanilla. It should be fairly easy to reproduce in a real battle scenario.

I'm sorry if I missed any reply to this Alex, but have you seen this error with reserve Deployment carriers?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 26, 2020, 02:18:59 AM
Quote
Imagine exploring distant part of the sector and getting a message about inspection and needing to travel 40ly+ just to ask your contact about where the inspection is going. That would be super annoying.
What a surprise. You already need to travel 40ly+ to remove cores if you get a message about inspection. And yes, it is super annoying. So, i dont see big difference.

Tbh, i just forgot that contacts need you to visit them.

Also... it will be very cool and funny if everybody here destroy Heg just to get some quality of life increase, and then boom: endgame crysis appears and you cant resist it without Hegemony help. Even more: endgame crysis comes from AI cores, and you made it worse, because you used them. What an irony.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FreonRu on October 26, 2020, 02:25:07 AM
I apologize in advance for using google translate.

Alex, good day. I really like the Starsector and have been playing it regularly since version 0.65. You have already been asked many times in the comments, but let me clarify the question a little. How many chances are there that the patch will be released before the new year? Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Arcagnello on October 26, 2020, 02:33:43 AM
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

I am stealing this statement.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on October 26, 2020, 03:37:53 AM
I've thought about the gameplay implications of these notes a bit more, focused around this change
Quote
Increased XP gain from fighting more challenging battles; up to 500% more XP gained


more than before you're discouraged from going after easy targets, and encouraged to go after larger targets where you can make full use of all of your combat ships.

This was the reason I kicked of the discussion that lead to the bonus XP change, but...

These changes definitely encourage players to try maximising the efficiency of a smaller fleet through carefully designed fleet strategy and loadouts in order to fight bigger fleets

Combat vs Logistics by asking Combat-focused fleets the question "Do you want to focus on Combat XP, or do you want more space for Salvage?", which adds extra playstyle options even among Combat focused fleets.

...I hadn't fully thought through these implications, so - thank you! I think these are great dynamics. It also makes the new auxiliary fleet skill ("which lets the player make a limited number of civilian ships very combat-effective") quite an interesting choice!

Quote
Cargo Pods: cheaper to stabilize, stabilization adds 400 days (was: 150)
This also supports the idea of removing cargo ships to increase combat efficiency to some extent

This, however, has me slightly worried. I hope it doesn't encourage a playstile where you go out hunting with a pure combat fleet to get all those sweet XP, stabilize your cargo, and then later have to come back with a cargo fleet to make a tedious pick up cruise. But I guess in the time that would take you could just fight more targets and get overall more XP that way...


Maximum level is 15


You get 4 story points per level. Or maybe 2. Point being, you get more of them than you get skill points, so they keep things flowing between level-ups. You also keep gaining story points after reaching the maximum level, so there’s progression beyond that.


This makes me wonder: If the story points are all given at level up, and you have good reason to either spend them all at once to maximise their efficiency, or to hold on to them until you are in real big trouble - that doesn't really help to "keep things flowing", does it? It still leaves you stranded in the (presumably) long intervals between level ups.

Mh. How about doling out some of the story points at half or quarter level intervals?

(You could get more fancy and link the timing of SP distribution to outstanding player actions. Basically, you earn the right to a story point at level up, but you only get it after fighting that big battle, progressing that storyline,  founding that colony...
I just like the idea of story points not just shaping your story, but also your story influencing your SP.)


Another point - if lvl. ups are now rare and far apart, how about celebrating them a bit more? A fanfare, some fireworks? At the moment I often miss it completely when I just leveled up.



Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SafariJohn on October 26, 2020, 04:41:31 AM

depends on the AI. They are "smarter" than humans because they can learn in simulations ultra fast. But you tell an combat trained AI that you plucked from a spaceship and tell it to govern millions of people it might not be so smart then.

if that what he meant, it still doesnt make sense

The descriptions say the AIs are straight up better than humans. The facts are that humans can outperform the top AIs. Yet you still believe the descriptions.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AcaMetis on October 26, 2020, 05:02:27 AM
Any chance that there'll be a way to administrate more colonies without having to resort to AI cores at some relatively quick point? I get that colonizing isn't the intended end goal and all ...

I can't really see doing that, no. As you say, that's not an intended goal, so I don't see a reason to develop in that direction only to need to cut it back down at some point. I mean, had to do that with colony size (pretty much knowing initially that size 10 would never stay as the limit), and look how much discussion that caused. Ha!

Yeah, point definitely taken on the discussions it'd cause ::). It is unfortunate that playing colony tycoon basically requires resorting to Alpha Cores, though. No way to colonize like crazy while roleplaying as a Luddite or...Hegemon? Eh, whatever the word for a follower of the Hegemony is.

... but it never struck me as sensible that some AI colonies can be administrated by a blank portrait saying "no one of particular note" (or some such) whereas your colonies not only must be administrated by someone

The "blank portrait" is more or less equivalent to the "no skills admin" you can hire, so at most that's a UI issue :)

Ah, got it. Any chance that bug will be fixed in the upcoming patch, than? I mean I get it's not a high priority, but, you know. Attention to the fine details.

... but that (given enough skill points invested) four of them can simultaneously be administrated as well as an Alpha Core - and only an Alpha Core -  can administrate one planet, by someone exploring the galaxy on the other end of the sector.

Consider that with an Alpha Core, there's a question of trust. There's the core, giving instructions for the optimal and perfect running of a colony, probably. And there's the human overseers, trying to figure out which of the core's instruction *may*, in roundabout and entirely unexpected ways, lead to Bad Things.

Here's to hoping that idea gets expanded on at some point. Because while on one side it'd be very obnoxious if using admin Alpha Cores (AI cores in general, for that matter) caused some kind of unavoidable and permanent problems, because you have to use them in order to put down more than one medium-sized system worth of self-sufficient colonies, on the other side I'd very much like to eventually out-Tri-Tachyon the Tri-Tachyon in terms of AI core usage and research. And that'd just make the Hegemony and Luddites both look like cranky old codgers overdue for a transfer to the nearest retirement home if that didn't result in something going spectacularly wrong ;).
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 26, 2020, 05:30:12 AM
I think your worries about optimising experience bonus from strength difference are unwarranted. Currently, it's cheaper to go full combat and not get any officers, but do people do that very often? In the next patch, it will be more risky to use smaller force, but also more rewarding, but I doubt the bonus to experience is going to be significant enough that people are going to change their playstyle. Not to mention that this basic desire (to get more, using less) is already present, yet it doesn't break the game in any way — not to mention that it's to preserve resources like credits, supplies, ships, that you can gain or lose, unlike XP, which can only be gained. And there's no time limit on the players yet to rush for XP.

This makes me wonder: If the story points are all given at level up, and you have good reason to either spend them all at once to maximise their efficiency, or to hold on to them until you are in real big trouble - that doesn't really help to "keep things flowing", does it? It still leaves you stranded in the (presumably) long intervals between level ups.

Mh. How about doling out some of the story points at half or quarter level intervals?
From Alex's wording I got the impression that story points are awarded as you earn them (at, say, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of progress towards the next level), not all at once when you level up. They wouldn't "keep things flowing between level-ups", if you earned them only at level-ups, no?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaizai on October 26, 2020, 07:12:41 AM
The post about stabilizing cargo and the possibility of people going full combat fleet for the exp bonus, and then going back with the haulers to pick up everything in a huge waste of time... 
Wouldn't it be possible to have a secondary fleet? maybe heavily limit it to only be able to have max 5-6 ships, only haulers or civilian ships etc (so you can't effectively use it to defend your colony effectively). 
This means that you literally make your haulers vulnerable to attacks so they don't hinder your strike fleet, it also means that you actually get to use your haulers to try and escape from fights instead of almost never seeing them, combat haulers would also get taken more into consideration and why not, even strange and fun builds made entirely with combat haulers. 
You could have the second fleet in tow at either the same speed or lagging behind, meaning that escaping from an unfavorable fight, means they would target your haulers instead (if they are closeby). 
Of course a hauler only fleet would be targeted more heavily by NPCs, reducing its overall effectiveness
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 26, 2020, 08:02:11 AM
The post about stabilizing cargo and the possibility of people going full combat fleet for the exp bonus, and then going back with the haulers to pick up everything in a huge waste of time... 
Wouldn't it be possible to have a secondary fleet? maybe heavily limit it to only be able to have max 5-6 ships, only haulers or civilian ships etc (so you can't effectively use it to defend your colony effectively). 
This means that you literally make your haulers vulnerable to attacks so they don't hinder your strike fleet, it also means that you actually get to use your haulers to try and escape from fights instead of almost never seeing them, combat haulers would also get taken more into consideration and why not, even strange and fun builds made entirely with combat haulers. 
You could have the second fleet in tow at either the same speed or lagging behind, meaning that escaping from an unfavorable fight, means they would target your haulers instead (if they are closeby). 
Of course a hauler only fleet would be targeted more heavily by NPCs, reducing its overall effectiveness
An interesting idea, but Alex isn't going to add fleet functionality in this update.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Attroc on October 26, 2020, 08:57:37 AM
(Officers that aren't assigned to a ship still count, since otherwise you'd be encouraged to unassign officers you're not planning to use in the fight... made that change just now, actually, since wasn't thinking about that aspect of it before.)

But that makes no sense. Just because you have them the campaign isn't necessarily easier. They should only factor into a battle if they are deployed to a fight.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on October 26, 2020, 03:11:55 PM
(Officers that aren't assigned to a ship still count, since otherwise you'd be encouraged to unassign officers you're not planning to use in the fight... made that change just now, actually, since wasn't thinking about that aspect of it before.)

But that makes no sense. Just because you have them the campaign isn't necessarily easier. They should only factor into a battle if they are deployed to a fight.

Its not really about 'sense' though: its about removing a tedious thing that a player would "have" to do to play "correctly". Even though the bonus doesn't represent the ease quite as faithfully/accurately, it makes gameplay better.

Here's an example: I come across a pirate fleet that I know I can easily beat without my officers on their ships. If I get more experience from the fight by removing the officers, that means that I can increase the loot I get (xp/story points) from the fight by doing micromangement for a few seconds before and after the fight. Gameplay wise there isn't anything interesting happening: its just some tedious clicking that a player trying to maximize their rewards would be incentivized towards doing before every easy fight.

There's a few other things in the game that share this design philosophy, like the logistics hullmods only being able to be installed in dock. It doesn't make much "sense" when I think about it: I can recover ships that have literally been blown in half, why is it hard to put surveying equipment on a ship while out exploring? But if I COULD do that, I could get the most rewards by installing the efficiency hullmod for travel, then right before every single explore and salvage swap over to the recovery ones. But that doesn't really add any 'fun' to the game, just added clicking before actually doing something interesting.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2020, 03:36:32 PM
I've noticed that enemy fighter LPCs on carriers with the Reserve Deployment ability do not self-destruct as the mothership retreats from the battlefield, leading to some rather annoying time after all enemy ships retreated, like in this case:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/pPELVJP.png)
[close]

You guys might want to look into that as you nerf Reserve Deplyment (unless you've already fixed it and I did not spot it in the patch notes). I've also had it happen with a Drover using Broadswords and a modder (SafariJohn) confirmed it seems to be originating from Vanilla. It should be fairly easy to reproduce in a real battle scenario.

I'm sorry if I missed any reply to this Alex, but have you seen this error with reserve Deployment carriers?

Thanks for the reminder - somehow, I just didn't notice this at all, my apologies! Made a note to check this out shortly.


Alex, good day. I really like the Starsector and have been playing it regularly since version 0.65. You have already been asked many times in the comments, but let me clarify the question a little. How many chances are there that the patch will be released before the new year? Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Ahhh! I'll probably regret giving even this much info, but I'll say "unlikely, but perhaps not entirely impossible". It really depends on some decisions about what couple of remaining content pieces to add in (or not), too, it's just... I can't say for sure.


This, however, has me slightly worried. I hope it doesn't encourage a playstile where you go out hunting with a pure combat fleet to get all those sweet XP, stabilize your cargo, and then later have to come back with a cargo fleet to make a tedious pick up cruise. But I guess in the time that would take you could just fight more targets and get overall more XP that way...

Civ ships don't count for much there, so I think it'll be fine!

Mh. How about doling out some of the story points at half or quarter level intervals?
From Alex's wording I got the impression that story points are awarded as you earn them (at, say, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of progress towards the next level), not all at once when you level up. They wouldn't "keep things flowing between level-ups", if you earned them only at level-ups, no?

You get them at quarter-level intervals, yeah.

Another point - if lvl. ups are now rare and far apart, how about celebrating them a bit more? A fanfare, some fireworks? At the moment I often miss it completely when I just leveled up.

There *is* a fanfare!



Yeah, point definitely taken on the discussions it'd cause ::). It is unfortunate that playing colony tycoon basically requires resorting to Alpha Cores, though. No way to colonize like crazy while roleplaying as a Luddite or...Hegemon? Eh, whatever the word for a follower of the Hegemony is.
...
Here's to hoping that idea gets expanded on at some point. Because while on one side it'd be very obnoxious if using admin Alpha Cores (AI cores in general, for that matter) caused some kind of unavoidable and permanent problems, because you have to use them in order to put down more than one medium-sized system worth of self-sufficient colonies, on the other side I'd very much like to eventually out-Tri-Tachyon the Tri-Tachyon in terms of AI core usage and research. And that'd just make the Hegemony and Luddites both look like cranky old codgers overdue for a transfer to the nearest retirement home if that didn't result in something going spectacularly wrong ;).

So, yeah - the thing about using Alpha Cores to fuel endless colonies is that it's also another point that will undoubtedly cause a robust level of discussion when they're finally reined in. The way it is currently is very much a loose end; you're not "supposed" to colonize more than a couple of planets. Alpha Cores already cause a bit of trouble when used, but the amount of trouble is currently - for various reasons - far below the levels it needs to be. Ultimately, I'd expect using more than a couple cores to run additional colonies to be more trouble than it's worth. Well, depending on one's capacity to handle trouble. Lot of details to figure out here, though.


Ah, got it. Any chance that bug will be fixed in the upcoming patch, than? I mean I get it's not a high priority, but, you know. Attention to the fine details.

Probably not, honestly. Not having a portrait there more clearly conveys that there are no skill bonuses, and the tooltip on the "empty" portrait says that it's not anyone of note (rather than just no-one at all). So I think it's generally pretty clear.


I think your worries about optimising experience bonus from strength difference are unwarranted. Currently, it's cheaper to go full combat and not get any officers, but do people do that very often? In the next patch, it will be more risky to use smaller force, but also more rewarding, but I doubt the bonus to experience is going to be significant enough that people are going to change their playstyle. Not to mention that this basic desire (to get more, using less) is already present, yet it doesn't break the game in any way — not to mention that it's to preserve resources like credits, supplies, ships, that you can gain or lose, unlike XP, which can only be gained. And there's no time limit on the players yet to rush for XP.

Hopefully you're right, yeah! I mean, it's not a major concern, but it doesn't hurt to fine tune a few things to make it less appealing anyway.


The post about stabilizing cargo and the possibility of people going full combat fleet for the exp bonus, and then going back with the haulers to pick up everything in a huge waste of time... 
Wouldn't it be possible to have a secondary fleet? maybe heavily limit it to only be able to have max 5-6 ships, only haulers or civilian ships etc (so you can't effectively use it to defend your colony effectively). 
This means that you literally make your haulers vulnerable to attacks so they don't hinder your strike fleet, it also means that you actually get to use your haulers to try and escape from fights instead of almost never seeing them, combat haulers would also get taken more into consideration and why not, even strange and fun builds made entirely with combat haulers. 
You could have the second fleet in tow at either the same speed or lagging behind, meaning that escaping from an unfavorable fight, means they would target your haulers instead (if they are closeby). 
Of course a hauler only fleet would be targeted more heavily by NPCs, reducing its overall effectiveness

Hmm - a secondary fleet adds *a lot* of complications. I have some thoughts about this for further down the line, but I don't want to quite get into it yet :)


(Officers that aren't assigned to a ship still count, since otherwise you'd be encouraged to unassign officers you're not planning to use in the fight... made that change just now, actually, since wasn't thinking about that aspect of it before.)

But that makes no sense. Just because you have them the campaign isn't necessarily easier. They should only factor into a battle if they are deployed to a fight.

One thing is they actually do factor in even if they're not deployed! At least, as far as the distribution of deployment points between sides. The other, bigger point, though, is that if you try to consider the difficulty of the fight based on what was deployed, it's:
1) Encouraging fine-tuning what you deploy in ways that are likely to be exploitative of the mechanic rather than interesting,
2) Complicated to figure out what the bonus should be (and, again, maximizing it will likely include "weird" gameplay patterns)
3) Complicated to display what that bonus is

Finally, this mechanic is meant to give some bonuses to running a leaner/more elite fleet, rather than to fine-tune specific deployments, so just fundamentally it's not meant to be based on that.

This does bring up a good point, though - officers that are not assigned to a ship *and that there's also no ship to assign to* shouldn't count. So e.g. a fight wouldn't be marked "easy" if you have a single frigate in your fleet and 10 officers not assigned to anything. Let me make a note to do that.

Its not really about 'sense' though: its about removing a tedious thing that a player would "have" to do to play "correctly". Even though the bonus doesn't represent the ease quite as faithfully/accurately, it makes gameplay better.

Here's an example: I come across a pirate fleet that I know I can easily beat without my officers on their ships. If I get more experience from the fight by removing the officers, that means that I can increase the loot I get (xp/story points) from the fight by doing micromangement for a few seconds before and after the fight. Gameplay wise there isn't anything interesting happening: its just some tedious clicking that a player trying to maximize their rewards would be incentivized towards doing before every easy fight.

There's a few other things in the game that share this design philosophy, like the logistics hullmods only being able to be installed in dock. It doesn't make much "sense" when I think about it: I can recover ships that have literally been blown in half, why is it hard to put surveying equipment on a ship while out exploring? But if I COULD do that, I could get the most rewards by installing the efficiency hullmod for travel, then right before every single explore and salvage swap over to the recovery ones. But that doesn't really add any 'fun' to the game, just added clicking before actually doing something interesting.

(Yeah, also very much this!)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 26, 2020, 03:44:32 PM
Honestly, I'd suggest just taking (player-side) officers and player level out of the equation entirely. That way there's just no question about whether or not it's beneficial to have/use high level officers, and a player who invests in, say, colony skills won't find that their fights are being treated as being 'easier'.

If making that change also means you need to re-tune the player XP curves a bit to account for expecting slightly more XP from battles - well, that's not really a problem, is it? Since that's exactly the same testing you'd need to do for how progression feels just from adding the bonus XP for hard battles feature anyway.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
Thinking about it, this would incentivize you to expand your fleet as soon as possible so that you're fighting larger enemy fleets with more officers (and thus more XP bonus). I'm not sure that dynamic is good - you're kind of... skewing what counts as "challenging" in a direction that punishes using a smaller fleet, since using a large fleet with more officers would make comparatively weaker enemies count as more challenging. That doesn't seem like something adjusting the XP curve could fix.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 26, 2020, 04:13:35 PM
Thinking about it, this would incentivize you to expand your fleet as soon as possible so that you're fighting larger enemy fleets with more officers (and thus more XP bonus). I'm not sure that dynamic is good - you're kind of... skewing what counts as "challenging" in a direction that punishes using a smaller fleet, since using a large fleet with more officers would make comparatively weaker enemies count as more challenging. That doesn't seem like something adjusting the XP curve could fix.
Er, huh?

If your level & officers don't count in, but your fleet size does, then making your fleet larger makes all enemies count as less challenging, whether they're "comparatively weaker" or not.

I don't understand your logic here.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2020, 04:54:53 PM
... reading it back, I'm not sure I understand it either.

(My point was that if something makes your fleet stronger but doesn't make the XP bonus smaller, then you'd want to add as much of that as possible to maximize it. But whether that actually holds up depends on whether these increases in strength add up in a non-linear way, how the bonus XP calculation works, etc...)

Still, a fleet with 5 officers facing 10 pirate ships without and being told it's a challenging fight... hm.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kaelum on October 26, 2020, 05:21:29 PM
Wouldn't multipliers on your overall fleet power or top x combat ships (x being equal to number of officers) work for that? A 10 ship fleet with 10 officers would still be weaker than a 20 ship fleet with 10 officers, but stronger than a 10 ship fleet with no officers.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2020, 05:39:43 PM
Hmm? I'm not quite clear on what you mean, but I think just counting the officers/levels, and the ship, more or less accomplishes getting a rough estimate in the same vein as what you're suggesting. And it can't be anything better than a rough estimate, anyway!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AsterPiano on October 26, 2020, 05:50:42 PM
Maybe dmods should factor into it after all, since that's the main point that makes Pirate fleets so weak for their size.
However that would mean the player can exploit dmods to make their own fleet's strength value lower, so you could make the equation pretend Player ships are all at a non-dmod level.

I think it's reasonable to do it this way, it assumes a kind of "best case scenario" for the player, which means a player can't trick the game into thinking he has a weak fleet when actually the player's ships might for be dmodded but without any combat dmods, or they are combat impacting dmods but the player chose ships that have the least impact for their role, and assumes the pirate fleet's ships have all combat impacting dmods. (Although actually, doesn't fighting dmod riddled fleets give less XP anyway?)

I'm thinking it might be good to play it safe and add some slight inconsistencies to the equation just to make sure the player can't abuse it. Because the player can choose what their own fleet's strength will be, where it's possible to keep rolling for the "perfect dmods", but they can't choose their enemy with the same precision as for their own fleet.
Just to kind of reword what I'm trying to say, you can generalise for enemy fleets, that more dmods make them weaker, but you can't use that same generalisation for players.

Of course this might be overcomplicating/overdesigning this feature and might actually make it too much trouble for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 26, 2020, 05:57:22 PM
Quote from: Alex
So, yeah - the thing about using Alpha Cores to fuel endless colonies is that it's also another point that will undoubtedly cause a robust level of discussion when they're finally reined in. The way it is currently is very much a loose end; you're not "supposed" to colonize more than a couple of planets. Alpha Cores already cause a bit of trouble when used, but the amount of trouble is currently - for various reasons - far below the levels it needs to be. Ultimately, I'd expect using more than a couple cores to run additional colonies to be more trouble than it's worth. Well, depending on one's capacity to handle trouble. Lot of details to figure out here, though.

I always assumed Alpha Cores was basically wishing on the Monkey's Paw. Sure you get what you want, but it will come to bite you eventually. Perhaps I've been tainted by Crusader Kings 3 (which if you go down the Intrigue route, you'd have "wit checks" against other characters) but if a rogue AI kept on making harsher and harsher demands of the player, or else scuttling industries or even the whole colony, their fickle nature would be well-learned. Of course, if some Cores did no such thing, or caused minimal trouble, the player may be willing to roll the dice. In short, it'd be cool if Alpha Cores had personalities like Compliant, Mischievous, and Chaotic.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on October 26, 2020, 06:51:00 PM
I always assumed Alpha Cores was basically wishing on the Monkey's Paw. Sure you get what you want, but it will come to bite you eventually. Perhaps I've been tainted by Crusader Kings 3 (which if you go down the Intrigue route, you'd have "wit checks" against other characters) but if a rogue AI kept on making harsher and harsher demands of the player, or else scuttling industries or even the whole colony, their fickle nature would be well-learned. Of course, if some Cores did no such thing, or caused minimal trouble, the player may be willing to roll the dice. In short, it'd be cool if Alpha Cores had personalities like Compliant, Mischievous, and Chaotic.

Neat idea! Though perhaps instead of difficulty variance, the *types* of trouble they cause (i.e. economic vs military vs faction rel) could be a little more predictable - or at least thematic in nature? I say this because having RNG effect the downsides' severity or number like that could mislead new players into thinking they understand cores when they have a good first experience, install a bunch off that first impression, then really regret it afterwards.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 26, 2020, 07:05:08 PM
I would expect cores (as governors) to act as demons that would kill all humans then possess the colonies to build more demon ships.

If core admins are really bad in the long run, it means player should not use them to govern colonies, and just use cores for various industries where they do no harm beyond inspections or Pather cell aggravation.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 26, 2020, 07:11:43 PM
Oh, I agree that RNG makes for some weird decision-making but I would imagine that even a new player would understand what was going on and why after a few runs. I guess it depends on the RNG weights. If half were "well-behaved," one-third were "troublesome but could be permanently appeased after awhile" and the remaining 17% were "demons" (per Megas) set out to conquer/destroy humanity (but would string you along indefinitely), would you roll the dice? I might... :)

But, as you say, and as Alex has repeatedly stated, if it becomes a "mini-game" with little other purpose, it's probably not a good fit for Starsector. I just thought it'd be an interesting wrinkle to using the Cores.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2020, 07:16:01 PM
Maybe dmods should factor into it after all, since that's the main point that makes Pirate fleets so weak for their size.
However that would mean the player can exploit dmods to make their own fleet's strength value lower, so you could make the equation pretend Player ships are all at a non-dmod level.

I think it's reasonable to do it this way, it assumes a kind of "best case scenario" for the player, which means a player can't trick the game into thinking he has a weak fleet when actually the player's ships might for be dmodded but without any combat dmods, or they are combat impacting dmods but the player chose ships that have the least impact for their role, and assumes the pirate fleet's ships have all combat impacting dmods. (Although actually, doesn't fighting dmod riddled fleets give less XP anyway?)

I'm thinking it might be good to play it safe and add some slight inconsistencies to the equation just to make sure the player can't abuse it. Because the player can choose what their own fleet's strength will be, where it's possible to keep rolling for the "perfect dmods", but they can't choose their enemy with the same precision as for their own fleet.
Just to kind of reword what I'm trying to say, you can generalise for enemy fleets, that more dmods make them weaker, but you can't use that same generalisation for players.

Of course this might be overcomplicating/overdesigning this feature and might actually make it too much trouble for what it's worth.

Solid points all around! I think it'll actually work better to count d-mods both for the player and for the enemy, so that it doesn't feel like you're being penalized for using d-modded ships. I think the risk of this being optimized around is very low, since it... basically doesn't matter all that much; XP is not a finite resource and there's always more where that came from. Sort of like not every single credit is being wrung out, at some point, it's "good enough" and there's no reason to bother. So I think it's more a question of how it feels.

I always assumed Alpha Cores was basically wishing on the Monkey's Paw. Sure you get what you want, but it will come to bite you eventually.

Ideally, yeah... but also a question of how to do that without making using them just a flat-out bad idea/trap choice; hence: details!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 26, 2020, 09:43:47 PM
Alex, since you are limiting the number of colonies players can/should have....
Can you make a system which lets players assign their spare ships and officers to a colony as a static(-ish) defense force?
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 27, 2020, 02:23:44 AM
Assessing each alpha core in a management position could be worth some quest or two, or other interaction. If you were able to identify a malicious alpha core before it escaped you, it could be fun to sell such trojan horses them to other factions to cause a shortage or a stability hit.
Solid points all around! I think it'll actually work better to count d-mods both for the player and for the enemy, so that it doesn't feel like you're being penalized for using d-modded ships. I think the risk of this being optimized around is very low, since it... basically doesn't matter all that much; XP is not a finite resource and there's always more where that came from. Sort of like not every single credit is being wrung out, at some point, it's "good enough" and there's no reason to bother. So I think it's more a question of how it feels.
Most importantly, d-mods are not officers or hullmods that you can just swap at any moment.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 27, 2020, 02:30:47 AM
Assessing each alpha core in a management position could be worth some quest or two, or other interaction. If you were able to identify a malicious alpha core before it escaped you, it could be fun to sell such trojan horses them to other factions to cause a shortage or a stability hit.

That sounds fun, but the code to differentiate one Alpha core from another would be quite a chore.

Edit: Hmm, might be doable. Might be. A separate, persistant list of each Alpha's id, loyalty and location which gets loaded/changed whenever the player acquires/drops/sells/transfers/assigns/loses an Alpha core. Need to rewrite a lot of old methods which involve AI cores to use this "list". Not a mention, creating a new "individual" every time the game creates a new Alpha core during post-battle or salvaging.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaizai on October 27, 2020, 05:44:55 AM
What about having the core progressively go towards more efficiency, for example asking to replace the defensive fleet with something of his own choice...then giving the player various quests, like the retrieval of other cores, or funds or whatever, so it can build some extra infrastructure...then you have the core rolling out redacted ships mixed with regular ones, eventually deciding that for the good of the colony, using only redacted ships is the better choice... 
Basically the core can progressively make more and more demands until the colony becomes so strong that they deem you unnecessary, at that point there could be a huge fight where you defeat the core, and you can either remove it, or keep it as is, because it now understands that staying at peace with you is the more sensible choice. At this point you could get a say in some of the choices like what ships to use, or leave him be, you'll get to keep some of the cool stuff but after the fight the colony will be in a pretty sorry state, possibly permanently in some areas. All in all, you'd have to decide for yourself if it's worth it or not
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 27, 2020, 05:59:12 AM
@Zaizai: I like the way you think :)

Most importantly, d-mods are not officers or hullmods that you can just swap at any moment.

Yep, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Megas on October 27, 2020, 06:03:39 AM
@Zaizai:  That is a demon core.  Starts friendly, then gradually goes kill all humans.  Even if you can bargain with it, it will probably still try to do bad things.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 27, 2020, 06:06:35 AM
Alex, since you are limiting the number of colonies players can/should have....
Can you make a system which lets players assign their spare ships and officers to a colony as a static(-ish) defense force?

AI fighting AI is a grind of spawning and respawning patrols/raids with a probably pretty basic RNG simulation behind it. Any ships you offer would be likely to not make a difference for more than the first one or two fights and the fleets spawn officers along with the ships depending on their doctrine anyhow.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SonnaBanana on October 27, 2020, 06:08:14 AM
@Zaizai: I like the way you think :)
Please say it will be implemented!
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 27, 2020, 11:09:24 AM
(My point was that if something makes your fleet stronger but doesn't make the XP bonus smaller, then you'd want to add as much of that as possible to maximize it. But whether that actually holds up depends on whether these increases in strength add up in a non-linear way, how the bonus XP calculation works, etc...)
Yes, exactly. You want all your (combat) ships to have officers. This is true, and in fact the point of my suggestion: to remove any question about whether or not more officers is a good thing.

Still, a fleet with 5 officers facing 10 pirate ships without and being told it's a challenging fight... hm.
Then don't phrase it that way? Could even just not display the value at all, just keep the same "You gain 3,000XP" message after the battle, and add in a tip saying something like "The smaller your fleet is relative to your opponent, the more XP you'll gain from battles."

As has been said, this isn't something that the player is meant to be trying to fine-tune.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on October 27, 2020, 11:28:44 AM
So if I remember years ago, this list will grow for another year, and then result in another huge release after we have all forgotten about this.

I am actually kind of annoyed. I get there has been work done, but why release patch notes before a patch is released. A patch that likely won't be released for another eight to twelve months?

I get it, Alex is alone by choice, but this doesn't build hype (at least with me), it builds resentment. I am getting sick of waiting for a game I paid for eight years ago.

Sorry I am a downer but I am seriously tired of this. An incomplete game for this long should be consigned to the vaporware dustbin of history.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: CoverdInBees on October 27, 2020, 11:37:44 AM
So if I remember years ago, this list will grow for another year, and then result in another huge release after we have all forgotten about this.

I am actually kind of annoyed. I get there has been work done, but why release patch notes before a patch is released. A patch that likely won't be released for another eight to twelve months?

I get it, Alex is alone by choice, but this doesn't build hype (at least with me), it builds resentment. I am getting sick of waiting for a game I paid for eight years ago.

Sorry I am a downer but I am seriously tired of this. An incomplete game for this long should be consigned to the vaporware dustbin of history.

So consider the current release the full game if you want? It's already got a lot more content and polish than plenty of other games...
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 27, 2020, 11:44:56 AM
As far as I know, Alex posts patch notes before the release to mark progress and to show to others that progress is being made. We also get to shout at him for every obviously wrong decision he makes.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on October 27, 2020, 11:46:38 AM
So if I remember years ago, this list will grow for another year, and then result in another huge release after we have all forgotten about this.

I am actually kind of annoyed. I get there has been work done, but why release patch notes before a patch is released. A patch that likely won't be released for another eight to twelve months?

I get it, Alex is alone by choice, but this doesn't build hype (at least with me), it builds resentment. I am getting sick of waiting for a game I paid for eight years ago.

Sorry I am a downer but I am seriously tired of this. An incomplete game for this long should be consigned to the vaporware dustbin of history.

So consider the current release the full game if you want? It's already got a lot more content and polish than plenty of other games...

...but that would not only be a lie, but a direct denial of reality.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on October 27, 2020, 11:47:51 AM
As far as I know, Alex posts patch notes before the release to mark progress and to show to others that progress is being made. We also get to shout at him for every obviously wrong decision he makes.

I don't want to shout at him. I am just expressing, as a customer, displeasure. Not everything can be cheers and fireworks of joy. It's been eight years.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SCC on October 27, 2020, 11:55:47 AM
I actually meant shouting at him for balance decisions and other stuff that can be changed before the release if people complain enough. I didn't realise I could mean you, sorry.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on October 27, 2020, 12:03:04 PM
So consider the current release the full game if you want? It's already got a lot more content and polish than plenty of other games...

...but that would not only be a lie, but a direct denial of reality.
Actually, the purchase page makes it very clear that what you're buying is the current version of the game.
Quote from: Alex
When you preorder, you’re getting Starsector (formerly “Starfarer”) in its current state – that’s why we’re offering it at a discounted price. As an added bonus, preordering entitles you to all future updates, including the final version.
Personally, I've had a lot of fun playing Starsector through the various versions I've been around for, and don't regret the money spent; even in its current release it's already a much better game than some completed games.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 27, 2020, 02:00:34 PM
Still, a fleet with 5 officers facing 10 pirate ships without and being told it's a challenging fight... hm.
Then don't phrase it that way? Could even just not display the value at all, just keep the same "You gain 3,000XP" message after the battle, and add in a tip saying something like "The smaller your fleet is relative to your opponent, the more XP you'll gain from battles."

As has been said, this isn't something that the player is meant to be trying to fine-tune.

Still need to make the player fairly aware of it, though! I'm not really sold on the benefits of not counting officers here; they're so much better than without that I think it's trying to fix something that wouldn't actually be a problem. I mean, what you're saying makes sense, but what's currently in the game I think also works, and I kind of want to just stop messing with it :)

@Zelnik: I'm sorry that the way I'm going about it is causing resentment for you! I don't think I can really do anything differently here, though; it's a pretty sizeable project. All I can do is work on the game in the best way I'm able to, and try to provide (hopefully enjoyable!) versions of the game along the way.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on October 27, 2020, 02:04:55 PM
Forgive my misunderstanding, It's 'current' but it's not 'complete'

Everyone and anyone can see that. I had fun with the game, absolutely, but I just can't be thrilled or hyped anymore because it just takes too long between releases. To add insult to injury, those releases are further and further between one another to the point of entire game could be developed between those releases.

I am not being disrespectful here. I am just trying to express my displeasure in as respectful a way as I can. For me, it's gotten old. It would have been better if he held off on the patch notes until the patch was ready to release. It could be another year before we see it...and what then? Another two years before the one after that?

I get he is a one man gang, but I am also one person trying to express my feelings based on a product purchased incomplete 8 years ago. At least I am not screeching about his lack of skill or talent (i'm not), but I CAN express that 'eight years and you aren't even in 1.0 is a bit much.'
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zelnik on October 27, 2020, 02:08:12 PM
Still, a fleet with 5 officers facing 10 pirate ships without and being told it's a challenging fight... hm.
Then don't phrase it that way? Could even just not display the value at all, just keep the same "You gain 3,000XP" message after the battle, and add in a tip saying something like "The smaller your fleet is relative to your opponent, the more XP you'll gain from battles."

As has been said, this isn't something that the player is meant to be trying to fine-tune.

Still need to make the player fairly aware of it, though! I'm not really sold on the benefits of not counting officers here; they're so much better than without that I think it's trying to fix something that wouldn't actually be a problem. I mean, what you're saying makes sense, but what's currently in the game I think also works, and I kind of want to just stop messing with it :)

@Zelnik: I'm sorry that the way I'm going about it is causing resentment for you! I don't think I can really do anything differently here, though; it's a pretty sizeable project. All I can do is work on the game in the best way I'm able to, and try to provide (hopefully enjoyable!) versions of the game along the way.

I appreciate the response, I really do.

It's better that you realize both the good and the bad consequences of such a long development time. At some point people will just say "if not now...then when? If not soon, then ever?"

The product is great, the time it is requiring is not. How can I be exited for something that hasn't manifested in eight years? If one person is willing to voice it, more may in the future, so be prepared for it.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 27, 2020, 02:20:19 PM
I hear what you're saying! I don't mean to discount it, but it's one of those things where... there's no useful action I can take in response to this information, whether voiced by you or someone else. (Well, no action that wouldn't compromise the final product. I'm assuming you wouldn't I rather tie up a few loose ends real quick and call it 1.0. Besides, I don't want that.)

So! I'll just hope that when the next version is released, you (and others of a similar mind) will find it to your liking :)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Zaizai on October 27, 2020, 02:43:19 PM
I hear what you're saying! I don't mean to discount it, but it's one of those things where... there's no useful action I can take in response to this information, whether voiced by you or someone else. (Well, no action that wouldn't compromise the final product. I'm assuming you wouldn't I rather tie up a few loose ends real quick and call it 1.0. Besides, I don't want that.)

So! I'll just hope that when the next version is released, you (and others of a similar mind) will find it to your liking :)
Quick question: have you considered making smaller updates over the course of the year, while you work on the "big bad update"? I'm talking about relatively small things like those already included in these patch notes, like adding a ship here and there, balancing some weapons, adding small stuff etc. 
While not substantial and hype inducing, they could help keeping the playerbase engaged and speaking about the game to their friends/making youtube videos etc etc (which of course, means more sales for you). 
I personally have no trouble waiting, however i do find myself picking the game for a bit, and then forgetting about it until i randomly remember months later and check about the update progress. If even 20% of the current patch notes were separated into smaller updates every couple months or something, it could make many people happier and keep the community strong imho. 

Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Morrokain on October 27, 2020, 02:52:05 PM
Quick question: have you considered making smaller updates over the course of the year, while you work on the "big bad update"? I'm talking about relatively small things like those already included in these patch notes, like adding a ship here and there, balancing some weapons, adding small stuff etc. 
While not substantial and hype inducing, they could help keeping the playerbase engaged and speaking about the game to their friends/making youtube videos etc etc (which of course, means more sales for you). 
I personally have no trouble waiting, however i do find myself picking the game for a bit, and then forgetting about it until i randomly remember months later and check about the update progress. If even 20% of the current patch notes were separated into smaller updates every couple months or something, it could make many people happier and keep the community strong imho.

He could, but I think that would only further slow down the big update. It's not one of those things where you can just throw some extra stuff in there - at least most of the time. He'd probably have to fork the whole project each time, then there is polishing that forked update, making it consistent with the big update when things in the big update change pre-mini-update, etc.

So considering that, I'm not sure it is worth it. Idk, just my opinion though and I'm making assumptions there.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on October 27, 2020, 02:53:21 PM
Ah - it's actually quite difficult to split things out like that. A lot of things need other things to either work at all or "make sense" mechanically. The things that don't aren't usually all *that* interesting; not enough to warrant an update or to make people happy with one.

Also, keeping separate branches - and making a release - is a lot of work, the latter especially because of testing, playtesting, and follow-on support. Plus some changes could be mod-breaking etc. At a rough guess, even if putting out an update every couple of months was reasonably doable over say the current release cycle, it'd add multiple months worth of work.

(Edit: ninja'ed etc)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: AsterPiano on October 27, 2020, 02:55:07 PM
While not substantial and hype inducing, they could help keeping the playerbase engaged and speaking about the game to their friends/making youtube videos etc etc (which of course, means more sales for you).

If even 20% of the current patch notes were separated into smaller updates every couple months or something, it could make many people happier and keep the community strong imho.
Personally, I find the modding and Tournaments already do a good job of adding 'small updates' to my experience of the game and keeping the community strong.
With the actual base game updates, I think of each version as almost a whole new game. The added features are designed with each other in mind and I think that adding them in bit by bit would decrease the overall impact of those changes as they wouldn't quite be able to 'play off each other' and be used to their full potential.
I also think more frequent game updates would make it more difficult for modders to keep everything up to date with the current release.

(Also ninja'ed! But still want to voice my opinion)
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FooF on October 27, 2020, 03:15:51 PM
Everyone has a right to their opinion. I've gotten waaaaaay more than the $10 I paid back in...[checks] wow, 2013. I've sunk a thousand-plus hours into the game (I shudder to think what the actual number is, and potentially what I could have done "better" with that time!)

That being said, the game has delivered more than a $10 experience since the beginning. Patches like 0.8 and 0.9 basically re-invented the game with as much content as they brought. I imagine 0.95 will be similar. Yes, the waiting sucks but I currently have 18 runs on 0.9a, each probably 15-20 hours so it's not like I haven't "gotten my money's worth." I don't find the game boring yet, which is a testament to how well-designed it is.

I'm not going to name some other games that have also been in development 8+ years, have hundreds of millions in crowdfunding and still don't even have a true playable product that remotely resembles what was promised 8 years ago. It's little solace, I'm sure, but it could be a lot worse.
Title: Re: Starsector 0.95a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Histidine on October 27, 2020, 08:46:01 PM
How can I be exited for so