Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Skill Changes, Part 2 (07/15/21)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - HopeFall

Pages: [1]
1
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Adjusted Sector
« on: February 23, 2020, 01:46:28 PM »
Might be...iunno. The engine?  I don't blame Alex. But there's a trend with games like Kenshi, Rimworld, Starsector, Minecraft. Despite the simplicity and seeming low requirements, modding them tends to chug your system significantly more than say, a 300 mod Skyrim game. Which is funny to me.

2
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (Tweaks Ed., 0.2.2g)
« on: February 23, 2020, 12:31:51 AM »
The meme vid seems more like a personal attack against HMI "balance". But I can see how it could've been done just for fun. Still...

1) Ok, let's have some math.

1 Junk = 4000 cargo, 2000 crew, 2000 fuel. This 1 Junk costs  36 supplies/m and 12 fuel/y

4.5 colossus freighters = 4050cargo, 900 crew, 540 fuel. This hypothetical 4.5 colossuses cost 27 supplies/m and 12 fuel/y
same fuel usage = 12. Have some spare supplies = 9.

But wait! We also need 2.43 (lol) phaetons to fill this fuel gap which is another 7.29 supplies/m and 4.86 fuel/y
which bring us to total: 4098.6cargo, 948.6 crew, 2000 fuel. This is already cost 34.29 supplies/m and 16/86 fuel/y

Good on you for the math, that helps a good deal to determine how they're fair, or balanced.

Let's see. So essentially, yes, I was correct. It's not efficient to run the Junk compared to those ships. Seven in total? Yes, I'm aware there's a limit on fleet numbers (never had to run a max fleet count, but hey, some people like really tiny, really shiddy ships).

So let's consider, what's the downside? Oh. Right. Non-max 20 speed. Yeah. No thanks. Also, there's your balance.

But to be fair, let's bring in the big boys into the discussion, since you pointed out needing more ships for a similar effect.

1 Junk - 4000 cargo, 2000 crew, 2000 fuel. This 1 Junk costs  36 supplies/m and 12 fuel/y
or
2 Atlas - 4000 cargo, 200 crew, 800 fuel. At 20 supplies/m and 20 fuel/y
1 Prometheus - 200 cargo, 100 crew, 2500.  At 10 supplies/m and 10 fuel/y

An excess of 1300 fuel. and 200 supplies. 6 less supplies, a good 18 fuel over. Which the insane extra volume of fuel should make up for. More efficient? Sure. 6 burn over 5, which is doubled for hyperdriving about. In this case, a Civilian grade hull is actually a benefit. Not only do you get the Augmented drive, but you can also run Militarized Subsystems for that extra much desired burn. Less Supplies, significantly, over time. The only benefit, here, is the extra freed logistic mod the Junk can have, but frankly, I'd take Military Subsystems on it if I could.
But what about crew? I actually feel more crew is a negative, given the monthly cost of running them. But given the Junk is expected to go into combat, fair enough.

Instead of your suggestion of forcibly keeping it at 5 burn drive, I'd suggest tuning it slightly. Less crew, for sure. It could be slightly less efficient fuel wise (but not by much, unless the burn drive is boosted to 6). Sounds to me, honestly, that this ship is competitive. That's what we call this.

Max efficiency? Run the faster, smaller ships. Want more combat ships because of fleet max? Get the bigger ones. Want even MORE combat ships? Run the junker, but lose efficiency and speed.

As for your combat analysis. Iunno. Maybe? As I said. *Never* had a problem fighting them. And we all know how Dooms behave in the player's hands. I fully understand that you can MAKE this ship super strong. It just doesn't come across like it is. Not many people run this flagship. (likely because of the slow burn).

I don't want to take ages to go mining. And in that case, I'd use other mods' Starlifter or Pathfinder. I don't want to burn massive supplies because one ship is keeping my entire fleet from operating. But again, that seems part of its balance for having good stats across the board. I think less crew, more fuel consumption. Don't go crazy with the nerfs. Consider its placement. But nuking its speed by 2, as your suggestion, AND lowering it's combat power, and lowering its cargo and fuel. Would literally make this ship Junk.

3
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Hazard Mining Incorporated (Tweaks Ed., 0.2.2g)
« on: February 22, 2020, 09:01:15 PM »
Hello, don't you think what "Junk" have a bit overpowered logistic stats? It's only downside is burn speed of 5 which is easely can be countered by augmented drive field what gives you 7 in total.
...
Solutions? Nerf his oversized general stats, at least fuel and crew capacity from 2000 to 1000 each, also augmented drive field must be built-in hull mod, so this ship is actually gonna travel with intendent 5 burn level. Don't forget what with expanded cargo hold this thing became even more OP, yes, such large cargo holds makes sence for mining barge, but it shouldn't be universal ship without any flaws which can even serve as a flagship if fitted right.

This is absolutely insane, do not listen to him. I will never use a ship that can't achieve a burn speed of 9 with Augmented Drive. (For a Total of 10 with the skill).

A burn level of 5 is ridiculously bad. There's literally no vanilla ship that is that low, from glancing. I don't care if it's the single strongest ship in the entire game (with the exception of pulling it out of dock for invasion fleets, for the brief moment it's necessary). Big ships are NOT slower than small ships. The opposite should be entirely true, most of the time. We're not flying inside the atmosphere. More over, these suggestions on lowering it's cargo, despite admitting to it being a mining ship, is just another ridiculous suggestion. I, for one, am TIRED of using Colossus(i) for the entire game. They have 900 cargo space, and are the best fuel efficiency for cargo ships, even with most mods into consideration. Making a ship like the Junker have a measly 100 more cargo space is a slap to the face.

While some consideration should be spared to ensure things are balanced with vanilla ships, it's OK to have something be better, at higher prices. As I said, I'm basically using Colossi and Phaetons because there's basically nothing better - never have I wanted a cargo ship or fuel ship to fight. That's absurd. I want it to do its job well, like with every other ship in the game.

He posted a 'kek' video that showcases how terrible the AI is in fighting. Against ships that don't have EMP to shut down that unprotected, shieldless disaster. Great. I've personally never had a problem fighting it, since I've never used it (because of the burn speed).

And seriously a massive "lol" needs to go out to having augmented drive integrated into the Junker AND having it still be at 5. Congrats on the player never using it, and that fleet never catching any other ship in the entire game.

4
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Adjusted Sector
« on: February 22, 2020, 05:32:16 PM »
Is there a fix to massive FPS hits on Intel or Map screen? Allocated 8 gigs of ram to this, only makes me use 20% during the FPS hit.

Strangely, I feel I have a better system, but there's definitely a hit to FPS while traveling around, too, with default settings. Fair enough, it's more than triple the size of vanilla.

I'm scared of messing things up however and adjusting the size. Is there a chance you'll ever provide some of your own settings for smaller than 360 size? Like a high, medium, low set? Maybe in spoilers?

5
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Boggled's Terraforming Mod (v3.0.4)
« on: February 20, 2020, 11:39:50 PM »
Question about some of this. I've been dying to alter the visuals of planets, and I'm wondering if this mod does that?

What I mean is, I see the implication that Frozen planets, for example, become Water worlds. The end goal being Terran.

The information seems a little limited. Are there ways to produce jungle/etc planets by not terra forming all the way? Which planets are viable for this?

6
Suggestions / Re: Ambush Bickering
« on: February 16, 2020, 12:14:39 AM »
I feel there's an argument to be made about fast ships, and small ships, and bringing use to them again. But people really need to stop with "Big Ships Slow". They're not. They wouldn't be. The engines on them are so large, especially with diminished gravitational influence, that there's no way they're 'slower'. I'd argue capital ships are, in fact, faster. Or maybe cruisers are. Than frigates.

But I mean more in "Top Speed". Manueverability, of course, they should be significantly worse at.

Just because something is bigger, does not mean it is slower. I think. Is my point.

7
Did you do all those profile pictures yourself? I have to admit, they really, really are nice. While I'm generally not using Archean often except for some unique playthroughs, I've totally spent the time to offload those icons into a personal mod. It's like, literally the best portrait back. It's so much better having such diversity!

8
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Tahlan Shipworks 0.3.14a
« on: February 14, 2020, 09:51:48 PM »
Was the infinite repair fixed? Or maybe I messed something up in a fantastically unique way. Stuff doesn't repair on the Meta after being destroyed. I'm not sure where I'd go in the files to go to see what the problem is.

To note, I did edit it by adding some hullmods and increasing its speed. I might redownload Tahlan and see if that fixes this weirdness... Hm.

Pages: [1]