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: A Tale of Two Tech Levels (05/28/21)

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 - ChaseBears

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
Suggestions / Re: LRM reform
« on: April 16, 2021, 12:10:22 PM »
what's really hurting LRMs right now is the proliferation of ships who they are zero danger to because they are too fast. Phase ships and spoiler ships and plasma drives.   Even with ECCM pilums are not fast enough to ever hit.  I think a mild baseline speed buff is necessary.

2
Suggestions / Re: More restraints on s-mods for more interesting usage
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:29:02 AM »
i mean you are just calling into question why the 2-logistics limit even *exists* now if the s-mods entirely break it.  The whole point was to stop people slamming every logistics mod on their civilian ships and now we're right back to it. S-mods! So you don't have to make choices.
It's a choice between putting an s-mod on a logistics ship or using it elsewhere, though. Augmented Drive Field on a capital ship is a 0% bonus XP investment, I'm pretty sure, and I've currently got...14, 16, maybe 17 such ships in my fleet? That's a ton of bonus XP and SP I simply wouldn't have to option to invest in if s-mods didn't break the 2 logistics limit.

The logistics limit exists so that player actually make choices when configuring their logistics ships.  Part of what makes Starsector compelling is the depth of the ship building side of the game.  Spending story points to break that side of the game is shortchanging it in favor of what is essentially a worker placement mechanic that is done better on any of a thousand mobile games.

3
General Discussion / Re: Doom is Just Unbalanced
« on: April 16, 2021, 10:11:20 AM »
The bomb is just stupid.  It's irritating as *** to play against and stupidly op in player hands.  It's also pretty much boring - press button, thing dies.

If it were built for being interesting to play both with and against, it would be like, you can drop it in phase only, it drops a spread of them behind the ship, so you phase up to *** and drop mines all over them before backing off.

4
Suggestions / Re: More restraints on s-mods for more interesting usage
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:57:43 AM »
i mean you are just calling into question why the 2-logistics limit even *exists* now if the s-mods entirely break it.  The whole point was to stop people slamming every logistics mod on their civilian ships and now we're right back to it. S-mods! So you don't have to make choices.

5
I think the game should just drop militarized subsystems entirely, and just use the escort/assault packages.   At least you only ever put those mods on actual combat ships! 

The biggest use of M-subs was always the +1 burn speed.  That always felt weird, my decision whether to militarize something never had anything to do with whether I wanted in combat, and in fact i often explicitly avoid it on 'combat auxiliaries' because I need the OP.    And now we have Bulk Transport which solves the 'burn speed issue' for free.

6
Suggestions / Re: Finding 55K ore in one station is not ideal
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:50:40 AM »
don't forget a sizable percentage of that ore is from your salvage bonus - which is completely wasted when obviously you can't haul back all this ***.

7
Suggestions / Re: More restraints on s-mods for more interesting usage
« on: April 16, 2021, 09:45:29 AM »
 I don't like that there's no decision to make - you're objectively wrong to not build in the most expensive mods.  Choosing what mod you S-mod should be a matter of the players preference. Assigning an OP value to S-mods, either directly or indirectly, would at least let players emphasize different mods.  Maybe I want to standardize Armored Weapon Mounts throughout my whole fleet. 

Another thought is that S-mods could have escalating SP costs. If it cost 2 Story Points to mount additional S-mods, that would mean you pick a few important ships to slap 3 s-mods on instead of like, every officer ship.


8
Suggestions / Re: More restraints on s-mods for more interesting usage
« on: April 15, 2021, 05:45:33 PM »
I suggested more max OP because it is simple and does not need to look for new downsides for perfectly fine hullmods because the new s-mod system favors them too much.

I agree with this, making story points a general ship improvement already involves commitment to the ship itself throughout the playthrough. Restrictions make the ship a bigger potential loss if you change strategies down the line and your built in mods don't work with it, and considering we can respec skills, it feels like a contradiction of sorts.

The initial poster is practically saying "People use these hard to earn resources in the most cost-efficient way possible" like its a bad or undesirable thing.

Rare and powerful resources will get min-maxed even more than other things, trying to stop it can only result in making the rare resources useless. Granted you can have a whole bunch of story points if you are a hoarder (don't look at me) but they are still to be used judiciously and that feels good.

There's multiple ways to design the system so that it doesn't cater to using it on the most expensive mod on your list, and story points will never be anything close to useless when they always represent Free Stuff.


9
Suggestions / Re: More restraints on s-mods for more interesting usage
« on: April 15, 2021, 03:48:44 PM »
I think the most straightforward and fair solution to the 'always build in expensive mods' problem is to make S-modding only worth a fixed 'average mod value' of OP, i.e. if you s-mod expanded missile racks into a frigate it still costs 3 OP since the s-mod value for frigates would presumably be 5.  Picking and choosing which mods qualify for S-modding will be confusing and possibly frustrating for players.

The XP bonus from cheaper s-mods is imo too far outside the players day to day experience to really care about in their decision making.  There's always more xp where that came from at any rate.

This wouldn't necessarily fix people slapping heavy armor on all their ships, but that's more of a mod balance concern instead.








10
General Discussion / Re: Stable Location Upgrades
« on: April 15, 2021, 11:55:16 AM »
Not as far as I know, but items for that would make great loot.

11
i agree these missions are a little too hard - even with minimal signature a patrol sitting in orbit will make things impossible. Patience can be rewarded though - patrols will cycle around and a lot of the vanilla systems have great piles of helpful ring systems and such near targets that you can use to lurk nearby.

I expect the 'intended' way of doing these missions is to sabotage the comm relays etc and get the patrols to investigate while you sneak in..

Mostly though just don't take these missions against military bases >_>


12
General Discussion / Re: Beam weapons need a buff
« on: April 14, 2021, 08:59:06 PM »
just wanna note in case people didn't know but graviton beams are weirdly good against missiles because they will deflect even reapers wildly off course

The points made about how the proliferation of highly efficient shields hurts gravitons disproportionately are good, but I'll note that support builds are *not* about fair fights.  A support ship is all about ganging up on people, so even if you are losing the flux war you can still win the actual war with a pressure weapon.  Combine gravitons with ion beams for extra hilarity.

13
Eh? Centurion/mora spam dampening field like crazy.  If the Gryphon isn't using autoforge, that genuinely counts as a bug though.

Make sure you don't have any mods mucking things up.

14
General Discussion / Re: Regarding exploration QOL
« on: April 13, 2021, 07:03:02 AM »
There's still enough derelicts and stations orbiting away from POIs that neutrino detector is just fine.

15
General Discussion / Re: Is the Industry tree dead?
« on: April 12, 2021, 06:01:09 PM »
I frankly fail to see where this change from "Skills that improved salvage ability and resilience" to "random stuff" is supposedly coming from.

It lost the reduced CR loss to hyperspace storms, and the bonus rare resource finds completely, I can see that. It also lost the dmod maintenance cost reduction stuff, and the dmod impact reduction stuff, but gained overall maintenance cost reduction and two very powerful tools for handling dmods. The other stuff, like extra resources from salvage, extra fuel, extra ship recovery, etc. is all there. It even gained aspects of other trees that I think fit better with it than their old homes, like fuel usage reduction from tech, and the guaranteed recoverability feature of leadership, in an admittedly roundabout way.

The original idea behind the industry tree was supporting a playstyle of being able to cope with losses and otherwise focusing on spamming lower-quality ships as opposed to being extremely loss-sensitive as was the general playstyle at the time.   The new industry tree has pretty much abandoned that and partly as a result has kind of lost its theme, with Field Repairs explicitly being for people who don't want to deal with D-mods at all and Derelict Contingent turning d-mod ships into super ships rather than having a quantity over quality focus.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15