Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Blog Posts / Re: Simulator Enhancements

« on: March 14, 2024, 10:29:21 AM »

I have spend about half of my time with game in the simulator so I thing that effort make it better is worth it.

I would be glad if the mod  "Combat report" is integrated to main game, or at least gets some Partnership status, so numbers are more precise and has better layout.

Second thing, I would like to have an option to easy edit and re-run setting.
I mean, I have set my opponent fleet, and my fleet  but I want remove one my ship and edit second ship then re-run.
Make such design of the simulator that minimum number if clicks is required for re-run previous.

Oh, and one  little nitpick - allow map mouse side buttons. It is in windows API for about 15 years.

2

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96.1a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: January 02, 2024, 01:58:15 PM »

i find escort to be detrimental to any ship that isnt omen
..
..

i end up using escort as a leash (get back here!), and then remove any orders and let ships move freely

Exactl.  In current status I only use escort for Griphone  with Timid pilot. Attach him to  a tank ship like Dominator or Onslaught with standard ot aggressive pilot. Result is nice, stadard pilot goes forward to meet enemy, Timid pilot  tryes to move backward as far from enemy as  possible, but  he cant because  of escort  leash. So he  position itself right  behind the tank, so fragile Griphone has a body-guard in front, then fire  rockets  over/thru the front ship. Due to combined firepower and defence it is quite effective duo.

Only problem is, this edge use case can not be described as escort. Well it is exact  oposite

3

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96.1a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: January 02, 2024, 08:41:16 AM »

Escort  command
https://starsector.fandom.com/wiki/Escort?so=search
- I guess 2 escort commands would be usefull with upcoming Escort package hulmode.

Lets make one (Close Escort) command which keep range  500 then second command (Loose Escort) with range 1000.
Then player could  better control role of close escort(possible PD defence ship like Omen) then destroyer wingman with Escort package.

4

Blog Posts / Re: Skill Tweaks

« on: December 17, 2023, 03:35:51 AM »

1) The ECM rating now reduces enemy range by its full value (by up to 10%), no more "half" business

Thanks. Check Factorio FFF blog, they make complicated game but always keep a keen eye that  player experience look easy to use. For example, last blog about trains created an easy to use system who replace hard core mode which only few could handle due to ovecomplicated design. It is complicated to create simple things.

The damage bonuses from the defensive skills are gone.

Thanks. I hope it  also means that defensive bonuses  from offensive skills are also gone. Keep Offensive vs Defenive skills readable/separated.

thematic sense for Damage Control,

"Repairs of damaged but functional weapons and engines can continue while they are under fire"

Apreciate desing approach and New idea fitting the skill flavour.

Normally, a weapon/engine that's not disabled needs 5 seconds of not getting hit before repairs start to top it back up to full health.  Automated Repair Unit to *really* double down on it and create a ship that's immune to anything except for the most bursty damage, as far as stuff going offline.

Pleasse make sure that similar explanation is placed on the  capstone skill tooltip, so player new what it does without checking blog or whatever other  resources.

====
Energy Weapon Mastery = really need base and elite swap.
====
More  powerful Elite skills means, that player want to keep Officers for long. Contrary, in latest patch gathering xp for Officers was made faster > which supports gameplay of replacing officers when replace ship types.
Would you consider an consistent design ?
Make it clear  if Officers are there to stay - then player need a system how to modify (respect) their skills.
Make it clear if Officers are expendable - then usage of story point to achieve elite skill is wrong design



Marry Christmas

5

Blog Posts / Re: Skill Tweaks

« on: December 15, 2023, 01:03:24 AM »

Combat Endurance - 50% to 100% makes it interesting. However I see a problem. Player  with this skill might want prolong battles to let ship regenerate fully. It creates poison gameplay. It would be  wise add a rule : " at the end of battle the ship automatically deplete the skill to fix self" so player doesn't need to stare at empty screen waiting to fix the  ship.

It doesn't work that way. At the end of the battle, a ship with in-battle hull regeneration loses hull, down to whatever the lowest health level it reached was. There is no value in prolonging a fight to regenerate.

I have never used the skill in current version, so I didnt know that skill only add "temporary HP" which is not mentioned  in the skill. If it really is temporary then
1. should be  mentioned in the skill
2. it is artificial game mechanic which has no physical representation in any sci-fi universe.

How  does it work ?  Nanobots fix the hull then after the battle nanobots dissemble the ship again and put metal back to storage boxes ?
 Basically speaking it is weird and I dont like it.

6

Blog Posts / Re: Skill Tweaks

« on: December 14, 2023, 04:20:52 AM »

Glad you finaly get into tweak skills.

Some coments to your reaasoning blog :
Systems Expertise - How about 10% less damage taken? No. Dont mix damage control, dmg mitigation and Systems. Systems E. skill should be about efficiency usage base ship systems. Therfore I would rather add bonuses for flux/shield/repairs/Maneuvrability  >>for example  > The Ship system activation generates less flux)

Combat Endurance - 50% to 100% makes it interesting. However I see a problem. Player  with this skill might want prolong battles to let ship regenerate fully. It creates poison gameplay. It would be  wise add a rule : " at the end of battle the ship automatically deplete the skill to fix self" so player doesn't need to stare at empty screen waiting to fix the  ship.

Damage Control -  +15% damage to enemy hull No. Dont mix damage reduction skills with offensive skills.
Keep damage control as skill which reducces big hits. Original idea was good just make it tick faster. Proposal:
Once every second, single-hit hull damage above 500 points has the portion above 500 reduced by 50%
Also add a graphic feeddback, (some shimmering or whatnot) so player knew that  something is happening.

Field Modulation - and tacking on a 5% extra damage to shields No. Dont mix damage reduction skills with offensive skills. More over, a skill which ads 3 numbers is hard  to understand. Keep it simple, add one or max two bonuses per skill. Adding a basket of  tiny bonuses is road to hell, very few players are able to read the small letters.

Impact Mitigation - “10% increased hit strength” I didnt understand what does "hit strenght" do. Also I didnt understand whole article Impact Mitigation idea. Do not know what are you talking about. Sorry.

Skills which wasnt touched :
Energy Weapon Mastery - should have  switched base and elite effect. General flat bonus usable for any ship is base, then Special Elite is for ships who want to use close range fight. Make sure player wide useable bonus as base, then elite as narrow case usage. Current setting is unfortunate.
Polarized armour - should help Shield shunt a bit more >> *Ships without a shield or a phase cloak are treated as always having 80% hard flux

ECM rating - old skill was perhaps not ideal, but one number  as result was understandable. Pushing one against other easy. Also easy visible on screen. Proposed new skill is far beyond my brain. It looks to me you live in a world where crunching numbers is fun exercise. Let me inform you that 99,9% of possible customers do not share your lifestyle. I would like to ask you go back to previous mechanic. Thank you a lot.
New adedd -
 The EW skill lets your ships capture combat objectives much more quickly, and from a longer range
good idea. although important information about ranges and speed is omited. WHY??? So an average player (which dontread your blog can not know what does it means). Very unfriendly design. It would be better re-phrase the rule into something like :
" your ships capture combat objectives 6 time quickly, and has 3 times more capturing range (1500units) "

Make yourself an early chrimass present, an A3 poster to place above you working desk :
  The KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)   

7

Suggestions / Re: Have USE_LESS_VS_HULL weapon AI tag

« on: December 02, 2023, 03:34:47 PM »

setting a weapon group as "Primary" could tell the ship "this range band is most important" with perhaps a Secondary or Tertiary option available.

Exactly the same solution I came up, after unhealthy hours in simulator.
There should be the Main range which is considered by AI as optimal.
Then secondary and the rest.
All  the  3 priority ranges are set in Hangar on the weapon group screen.
As long  as one ship in  combat  is human controlled (at maximum) then it means most of ships use  wrong tactic, which is unpleasant to watch.

regarding USE_LESS_VS_HULL priority of weapon usage against certain target types.
there should rather be ANALOG prioritites defined. That is way how human brain works. Example:
Lets have a weapon which makes lower dmg to shield.
Then we need ANALOG rule how AI use it. A 3D chart linked to Fluxes levels AND target type.
In case of low flux AND proper  target then rate off fire is MAX. Then it goes analog curve up to the point where flux is high or target type is unfavorable. Becouse of 3D chart you get a "shape of usage" which is analog.

To make it work efficiently Game need module : AI weapon officer
Currently each weapon wage war independently, if  get opportunity then blast them. There is no decision about  resources and priorities. As  result we see usage of limited ammo weapons shooting at target with zero chance to make damage or even hit. Same  as usage of point defence blasting rockets while they could be swallowed by shield, when PD should rather attack the opponent ship to finish it.
AI  weapon officer is a module which oversee all the weapons like player would do.
Consider chance of hit, chance of damage, current flux levels, optimal range for weapons available. This officer also should handle overkill situations, as long as he see all weapons and their real impact on current target  after bonuses applied.

8

General Discussion / Re: A method for focusing autofire weapons on a single target

« on: November 12, 2023, 05:03:38 AM »

Huh, I didn't know you can select an empty weapon group!

Selecting empty  weapon group on piloted ship is welcome automation. Player only controll movement of the ship.
I wish there is an option to select No_weapons for all ships, include those who need all groups to work efficiently.

Also, abiility to hand over shield control to  AI would be grreat. This way player cen get experience of old coin-up machines. Controling just few keys. Piloting of a ship is challeneging, that is fine, but some of us cant read all  that small  numbers around screen and smashing 20 buttons  all at once.

If you could add a gradual method of  AI support that would be even better.

Currently player touch controls then AI switch off completely,  it would be much convenient split AI into 4 official agents.
- ship controls
- weapons  include special  system
- fighters
- shields
Then fallow the patter, if  the player touch (override) key for the particular AI agent, then this agent is set OFF.
Which means, player could fly a ship but focus only Shield control OR only Ship control OR Shield AND Fighters.

Make AI support when needed so player could  focus at one part of ship contrrol or take  them all.
It would  be very nice for new players, casual players, old players, or even  small kids who play supported by parents ( look little one now press  this button  to fire rocket = all other things is handles by  AI)

Thanks

9

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Detailed Combat Results v5.3.1 (2023-05-06)

« on: May 07, 2023, 03:04:46 PM »

Thank  you for fast  update.
1. in the mod list is still  announced only old version  old your mod.
 https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=177.0
2. could  you improve  the after battle  stat, so that line with weapon say, how many of these weapon  are there. Best would be, give an info in a form total OP per dmg ratio. Such info clearly say the efficiency of the  weapon.

10

General Discussion / Re: Starsector 0.96a-RC6 S-mod Bonuses/Penalties

« on: May 05, 2023, 09:35:17 PM »

I'd really appreciate if someone would shed some light on this matter.

It supports the setting theme that life is cheap. Sure, you could take measures to keep your people alive... but you're not going to, because the cost-to-benefit ratio just isn't there to justify bothering to do so.

Replenish speed of Fighters is   reduced by two factors:
- number of fighters destroyed
- number of pilots killed
this s-mode means, that one factor is reduced to almost zero.

Qestion is, what is real impact  in seconds. As long as we dont  know  the math  equations, only someone brave with  stopwatch could bring  a light. If it is  still a noob trap or actually usefull feature.

11

General Discussion / Re: skills "limitations"

« on: April 23, 2023, 11:11:50 AM »

if i have a 280 pd fleet, but in a next battle only deploy 240 of the total value, the bonus still applies? or i having more than 240 will reduce the bonus anyway?

The bonus will be reduced. The limit is based on your entire fleet and not what you deploy in a given battle,

There is a trick with Support doctrine.
Remove pilot from  military  ships makes your fleet DP cheaper.
Removing pilot from a ship is also interesting, it gives you  15% CR which massive boost.
You only assign a pilot to  the  ship(s) which  are needed  for upcoming combat and do  it  immediately  right before  combat,  that  way you  get maxed CR and maxed Skill bonuses limited by DP.

It is sad thou that  is a poison play by  design. It requires a lot  of clicks.

12

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: April 20, 2023, 03:00:58 AM »

Player ship autopilot behavior will now take into account the faction doctrine aggression setting

Sound like improvement but isnt.

Faction  aggression doctrine can  be used  to  set non-piloted ships  to reserved behaviour, like  :Careful.
Then  piloted ships are standard or aggressive,  which creates nice mix  leading to victory.
Enforce Main character use  behaviour of support ship is  not smart  (diplomatically  speaking)
Better solution  is, add switch  to character screen to set  AI behaviour  for  main-character  separately.

Player character  typically  use a  flag ship, contrary  non-piloted ships are  support.
Enforce  same  behaviour to both is stu... 

13

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: April 19, 2023, 07:00:15 AM »

Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
Becouse of OP >> DP conversion rounding mechanic means poison ship build :
I  suggest make Tiers  for Fighters official.

I don't think that creating a tier system overlaying the OP system is a sensible idea. Also you would have to rebalance all fighters to fit the 5/10/15 values and that sounds like a pain and very frustrating to build for and that's without saying the massive nerfs that would have to be doled out to any fighters that are worth more than 15

You suffered some kind of short-circuit issue.

Sometimes i feel like my brain has been hit by salamanders not gonna lie.

Agree, It is very possible.

Check this:
1. If current rounding system come into release  stage, it means that every  player have to make its  own  re-evaluation and deep dive into sea of numbers to  pick only  those few fighters which are  worth  for  converted hangar. >> very unfortunate game  design.
2. Proposed  Tiers spread over whole OP  spectrum. e.i. Fighter for 25OP is  Tier 5. No "massive  nerf" exist.
3. what proposed  Tiers do,  is >>> Slight change  performance  of  Fighters to  fit an OP  number which divided by 5  gives  MODULO=0

Got it ?

14

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: April 18, 2023, 02:40:11 AM »

I've been thinking about Gladiuses recently, why not reduce their cost by one for them able to fit in +1 CH cost? Then they will be able to fill the niche of light fighters in converted hangars. Otherwise, they occupy too indefinite place.

That is serious concern.

The new fighter mechanic bring new player behaviour, the new ship builds.
Here is suggestion how to polish a rough edge:
Converted hangars introduces sort of Tiers.
Becouse of OP >> DP conversion rounding mechanic means poison ship build :
>> more rounding down less suitable for converted hangar. (because you get less punch for buck)
>> more rounding up more suitable for converted hangar.  (because you get  more punch for buck)
That is unfortunate game design.
I  suggest make Tiers  for Fighters official.

Make changes to  Fighter's numbers  such way they OP fit directly to DP.
Make T1 fighters  cost ALWAYS  5OP
Make T2 fighters  cost ALWAYS 10OP
Make T3 fighters  cost ALWAYS 15OP
and so on

It will be some work,  but definitely  worth  it,  for much better gameplay  experience. 
It also add positive mechanic, where new player could easer recognize that T2 fighter is better than  T1 without deep dive into sea of numbers. 

It would  also worth considering better readability, fighters make distinct naming  convention  which is  related to task.
Fighter   >> any small ship
Bomber >>  a small  ship which can attack adult ships but has no  weapons  to attack  other  fighters e.i. Bomber  could use Harpoon but  can not use Swarmers.
Interceptor >> a  small  ship which can use weapons which can aim fighters. e.i. Interceptor  could use Swarmers  but can not use Harpoon.

Bombers  or Fighters could use flare at will.  Decoy is not weapon.

Example:
Fighter Bomber  :  Longbow current cost 12  OP need change to 10OP to fit Tier 2 
-  PD replace by Decoy Flare Launcher
 

15

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: April 13, 2023, 03:36:36 AM »

BTW: I have noticed a small detail, Afflictor uses Entropy at fighters  even other  adult ship is in range (the other ship istarget of ally) Probably polished logic for Entropy debuff  use in  priority  >> First check all adult ships in range  in given order >>  Own target, Ally own fleet target (if more targets available then de-buff the one who is most damaged), Ally target, .  If nothing fit, then  use same  order for fighters. This  way, de buffing should be a bit more efficient.

Ahh, that's a bug! It's not supposed do target fighters at all, but taking a look at the code, I think I see how it might happen. *Should* be fixed, thank you.

Well, de-buff fighters is useful.  Afflictor carry  light weapons only,  when no  other target is in range  of Entropy system, then   use the ship system at fighters is perfectly fine. This way, Afflictor can be more  usefull for holding far beacons. Alone ship can handle a fleet of  fighteers easy. Disabling debuf fighters totaly feels wrong.

Afflictor is very  unique ship, it is better to highlight his special by smart logic than disable it.
I belive  add a few nested If-then  makes Ship  system used properly and use often  >>  it brings more  fun for players.
Highlight ship role of debuffer. Perhaps you  also think about  the new role: Healer.  Make salvage gantry release repair bot.  Yes, I like classic RPG.

It  is  one of very few ships where dmg  is not  the main focus. For sake  of diversity, ... keep Entropy usage on fighters.
Would you please rather make  priority logic smarter ?
Thanks

Edit2:
Also for same reason,  diversity and rebel style  of combat, add a buff for Salamander rockets. 25s > 20s refire.
Thanks