Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Of Slipstreams and Sensor Ghosts (09/24/21)

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 - slowpersun

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Suggestions / Re: Player made bounties?
« on: October 24, 2021, 02:41:47 PM »
Well, I found this by Googling for a less than related reason, but even though this post is just over 2 years old, it still raises a few interesting points.  Why can player STILL not set a system bounty on a player faction owned system if there is pirate activity (I don't think Pather activity generates Pather fleets, could be wrong)?  This seems a reasonable expectation since player cannot yet deploy fleets from player faction, either to kill pirate/pather base or just to attack another faction (although it is an oft-requested feature).  Basically, player has to either wait out the pirate/pather activity, or waste their time going to find and kill a pirate/pather base, instead of just setting a bounty if player has enough cash and go exploring (ie, player pays some set amount for bounty depending on activity strength [say 100k], if bounty paid out is less than this, player gets a refund [or money rolls over into next system bounty, but this seems like pointless extra programming]; if bounty amount paid out exceeds whatever player put forward, either cough up extra dough or lose rep).

I'm also curious why game only spawns a bounty hunter to attack player when player fails to deliver on a contract or doesn't repay a loan, but not when player is considered REALLY hated by any arbitrary faction that isn't pirate or pathers (since these use a different system)... basically a less threatening version of a vengeance fleet from Nex mod.

Suggestions / Re: Ship AI to respect player groups
« on: October 23, 2021, 06:56:06 PM »

Not "in the cards," hah!  Congrats on having quickest game suggestion added!  Will rebalance carriers some, hopefully.

General Discussion / Do contacts ever move/change planets in 0.95a?
« on: October 23, 2021, 11:12:15 AM »
Basically what it says in the title (in game currently, I make no assumptions regarding what the update will or won't change beyond whatever in dev diary).  Also, has anyone cracked the game code open yet and determined whether there is any chance of a contact's level going up after you do some number of missions for said contact, or do you always have to drop a lower level contact for a better one?  I ask because I have a mod idea regarding the use of contacts, curious how static contacts are considered.  Also curious whether contacts are listed by planet in code after being generated (ie, a list per planet, not a big array that includes contacts with the contact's planet), but I will probably figure that out eventually on my own once I bother to crack the code open further...

Suggestions / Re: A ruler for the map.
« on: October 20, 2021, 10:06:35 AM »
Love the idea. Also some advanced mapping screen where you canplan a route from star to star and see if yiz have enough fuel for that exact route?

Slipstreams will kinda render measuring distance for fuel requirements irrelevant now... and if you're in the same system as the coronal hypershunt or the cryosleeper, you can still plot a route to another system while using map and basically get distance, just hard to figure out exactly which systems are in the exact 10 ly radius.  But yeah, please add anyway, whatever you call it, when ability to deploy fleets from colony is added.

General Discussion / Re: Omega
« on: October 20, 2021, 10:00:26 AM »
Damn Scientologists Church of Ludd, never shutting up...

Agree.  If not, the following suggestion about a separate hull-mod just for logistical effect would also be welcome.

Before I made a thread suggesting exactly this, I did a search and found this one. So, here's my +1 for this idea.

While only counting packages would be the most elegant solution, if that couldn't be implemented for some reason, a possible alternative would be to split the logistical effects of Militarized Subsystems off into a separate hullmod so you're not diluting your auxiliary pool with a bunch of ships that will never deliberately see combat. If that couldn't be done, then just removing the OP cap and reducing the bonus to something like a flat +400% would still be better than what we've got, without making them overpowered (probably).

And if none of this is OK, at least a VERY CLEAR indicator that using militarized subsystems makes a civilian ship count against the combat ship bonus limit would be very nice...

Suggestions / Re: New Tech Mining / Outpost Approach
« on: October 17, 2021, 12:15:30 PM »
Still hoping Alex just goes with the idea to have tech mining (or an upgrade to it) instead generate quests to go explore other planets with ruins (or space stations, asteroids, maybe a cloud city on a gas giant)...

Although with current tech mining, I guess you're supposed to not build it until you get an alpha core to min/max initial output.

Suggestions / Re: Paint jobs and ship skins
« on: October 17, 2021, 12:11:26 PM »
Sounds like someone just doesn't feel like modding such a tedious undertaking themselves...!

But seriously, it would be kinda cool to reward players that run an entire fleet of a single faction ship type (pirate, TT, LP, XIV, etc.) with what is basically reputation free piracy, where the faction that your ships look like gets blamed instead (ie, a false flag incident); if you fail/lose/get "caught," you lose rep with both factions.  However, adding a paint recoloring action would basically negate the point of the previous suggestion.  So basically, no, a paint shop is bad idea, lots of mechanical turk work with little payoff beyond aesthetics.  I would rather have Alex play with fluid dynamics code so that battles which occur in solar flare or neutron star beam look way way waaay cooler.  Or at least more system backgrounds like the Unknown Skies mod, or the low-orbit battle maps in the Scy Nation mod.

Why do people keep asking for this nonsense...?

General Discussion / Re: Do people use Hyperion without Safety Override?
« on: October 16, 2021, 05:13:11 PM »
I thiiiink that your ship will be facing your selected target after you TP though, which can be important.

It definitely seems to do that correctly and without fail (with a ship targeted).  The intention I guess was that you are supposed to always teleport behind the engines of the targeted ship, with Hyperion orientation in firing position.  Just too bad if you burning in a different direction than where you end up facing and don't release the correct keys, you fly in the wrong direction... at least game seems to drop all momentum when using teleport, but if you hold the wrong keys down while teleporting, Hyperion sometimes drifts into firing lines if it didn't already teleport into firing line (depending on where it gets spit out and if targeted ship is turning).  Could be wrong about dropping momentum (since other phase skip systems seem to preserve it), just hard to test if ship is getting constantly smoked.

General Discussion / Re: Do people use Hyperion without Safety Override?
« on: October 16, 2021, 04:22:58 PM »
That sounds like he is trying to TP behind but is out of range so he ends up in front because that is the closest spot that is in range? Maybe if you try to TP too much on top of a ship, you could also trigger some logic about where you should end up, but it seems easy to just click behind the ship more.

Definitely kinda that, but sometimes I phase towards a targeted ship from a flanking position and still end up behind it instead of the other side of it (perhaps because the direction my ship is pointing is towards the back of the targeted ship, but hard to tell if only a few degrees towards back of targeted ship).  But if it's only supposed to phase you to where the mouse pointer is (or short of it if too far), an update to the ship's ability description would be nice... since usually when nothing is targeted, phasing just spits you out ahead of wherever ship is pointing at TP max range.

General Discussion / Re: Do people use Hyperion without Safety Override?
« on: October 16, 2021, 02:42:58 PM »
My only question is whether anyone has cracked open game code to determine phase teleport logic when player has targeted a ship?  Half the time I try to phase a Hyperion behind a ship, I end up on the wrong side and get smoked... seems way less intuitive to use since there isn't any indicator of where you might end up.

Modding / Re: Game finishes early, what can do?
« on: October 16, 2021, 02:30:14 PM »
Play a Nex game with more faction mods... or don't use Nex.

Nex author has pointed out that since vanilla game lacks underlying diplomatic code logic between factions, his mod can only do so much.  So without a few extra faction mods to even out the power balance between alliances, Hegemony usually fulfills victory conditions very quickly (sometimes Persean League, or "both" if they ally).  Same reason why Sindrian Diktat generally gets rolled first...

Also can't remember if you can use Nex agents to do false flag operations to break up alliances or lower relations between other factions.  If not, that would be cool to add...

Blog Posts / Re: Of Slipstreams and Sensor Ghosts
« on: October 16, 2021, 02:23:00 PM »
Can sensor ghosts be used in system to lure patrols away from points of interests? So that you have a sensor skill dedicated for luring where as go dark and pinging are mostly good for hiding/detecting?  This could make subterfuge missions better without much tinkering.

Sensor ghosts only exist in hyperspace, so no.

That's too bad, a skill that allows you to drop and/or shoot out a sensor decoy(s) for patrols to chase down or at least be distracted by would be cool, although logic to determine when AI uses it might be difficult to code (plus lack of radial gravitational pull around celestial objects means no bank shots due to gravity assist, sadly).

Closest video I could find, surprisingly not a Youtube clip of the actual scene... and not bothering to link to a video that will get dropped due to copyright, pointless.

Can we expect any hull mods to make direct use of slipstreams?

I don't think so - just in general, I'm not a fan of hullmods that have a usefulness this narrow. I could in theory see, say, giving solar shielding an added effect that boosts slipstream travel somehow, but... I'm not sure that this is very *interesting*. But it's hard to really say without having a specific idea in mind, and it's not something I've given any prior thought.

Alternatively, instead of doing any hull mods for slipstreams, maybe drop fuel savings in slipstreams to like 25%, but add 10% slipstream fleet fuel reduction to Ox ship (since burn levels bonus will be less useful with addition of slipstreams).

General Discussion / Re: Carriers in 0.95
« on: October 15, 2021, 12:33:53 AM »
And one of them, Recovery Shuttles, only reduces crew casualties.  Crew is generally cheap and disposable, making that hullmod minor campaign QoL at best and a waste of valuable OP at worst.  That leaves one relevant carrier hullmod left, all-important Expanded Deck Crew, which is the ITU of carriers.  Deck Crew affects replacement rate, the prime stat for carriers.  It is essential for carriers that do their primary job of using fighters.  (Brawlers or missileships with few bays do not count.)

The problem with carrier hullmods is if they are good enough, carriers will need them to do their job, and they will not have enough OP left for a viable warship-lite weapons package (if they also use good fighters like they should).  If I need to choose between a unarmed carrier that uses fighters optimally or a mediocre carrier with enough guns to defend itself, I am taking the unarmed carrier with good fighters because a carrier's job is to use fighters.

I'm assuming that Recovery shuttles hull mod was much less useless when crew experience was a thing (and it seems to be waiting in the wings to make a comeback), but for now it does seem to be much less useful.  As for running an optimal but unarmed carrier, besides the obvious solution of shaving OP by using crappier PD and weapons, I was also kinda assuming that if a few more carrier hullmods were added, Alex would prolly also fiddle with carrier OP (and/or OP cost of some of the fighters and bombers).  But for a game with a crazy amount of hullmods, with most being dedicated to weapons, shields and armor (along with the newly added phase ship hullmods in next update, may it arrive soon), the presence of only two dedicated carrier hullmods seems... odd at best, or a purposeful oversight at worst.

General Discussion / Re: Carriers in 0.95
« on: October 14, 2021, 03:06:12 PM »
I'm not the best mechanical player at combat, but carriers always seemed like a force multiplier rather than a flat force.  Specifically when you've got a combat line of brawling-with-guns capitals and adding more capitals isn't beneficial because there's not more room for ships to engage with the enemy.  This is when having a carrier or two that can send in supporting waves of fighters that don't have to worry about physical collisions can really focus firepower.

It's certainly not .91a anymore, but I do feel like the current balance rewards a heterogeneous fleet and maybe that's a really good thing?
I see a lot of people saying this, but the problem with this idea is that the fighter skills are spaced out enough that you need to spend almost all 15 points to get them all.

When we talked about it on reddit it basically came down to this: it's anyone's opinion whether carriers should be mainfleet or support ships, but what's not an opinion is the amount of benefit gained per character skill point investment. Carriers give you less by far.

This actually captures some of the main issue.  But kinda ignores hull mods.  Carriers dedicated hull-mods are limited to 2 hull mods in vanilla.  Count 'em.  Two.  I'm not saying more are necessary as some sort of balance (since some possible additional hull mod carrier love could really destabilize game balance), but maybe carriers should be judged less on an ability to spam out fighters/bombers as missiles.  Like adding a fuel requirement so that fighters and bombers aren't just judged based on how fast they can either swarm something or dump bombs like Slim Pickens...  ArmaA mod is really pushing the limits of what carriers and fighters can do, and kinda already has implemented what amounts to fuel via re-arming requirement.  Or maybe just a hull-mod that increase bomber damage against armor or something.

Still, since so many fewer levels now, maybe carrier skills need to be consolidated... especially since colony skills being dropped.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17