Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2 (04/30/22)

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 - Plantissue

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81
Suggestions / Re: Freelancer option
« on: March 09, 2020, 08:34:27 AM »
The freelancer mount and blade mod is one of my favorites, it allows the player to join an npc army (or fleet in this case). I think it would work amazingly in starsector as well. This could add a nice early game option and a new rp path. You could slowly earn creds, experience, relation with the admiral, and relation with the faction. As you level up you might have the option to upgrade your ship hull and loadout. You could rise through the ranks of your faction, and perhaps eventually be offered your own command.
Most of this already kind of happens if you take a commission with a faction. You can do this by talking with a station commander or similar characters on the colony screen. You get regular payment, payment for destroying enemies, and your relationship improves rapidly from such. You gain the ability to buy ships and weapons from the miltary market depending on reputation. The only thing missing is being offered your own command, but that wouldn't gel right with starsector. Aiding a faction in another fight without a commission increases relation with that faction as well.

Suggestions / Re: Paying pursuing fleets to leave you alone
« on: March 09, 2020, 08:05:35 AM »
just dont go to the luddic church or luddic path, both of em do that
The Luddic Church does not ask for payment. They act the same as any other normal faction.

Suggestions / Re: Shield colour based on flux capacity
« on: March 09, 2020, 08:04:14 AM »
Perhaps thin lines that emanate from the edge of the shield radially facing inwards that lengthens the more flux the shield has.

Suggestions / Re: Escort Coordination: Rule for Small Ship PPT
« on: February 29, 2020, 07:03:42 AM »
The problem is really that if the player reaches a point where they can beat one wave of the enemy fleet at full DP disadvantage comfortably, then they can beat an arbitrary number of waves and ppt is the only limiting factor. The remnants (particularly the radiant) are stronger than the players ships so that the player can't win at full DP disadvantage and thus can't battle an arbitrary number of fleets at once. Instead they can fight them separately or bring enough reinforcements to even out the DP. This is an example of the asymmetric enemies I was talking about. If the player has access to the same tech as the AI, the player will optimize their fleet more and be able to win at DP disadvantage, so the AI needs to be given some asymmetric advantage (radiants) to allow for a challenge without a slog.
I was thinking about that. Taking into account of an arbitrary number of waves and ppt as the only limiting factor what is the maximum amount of DP a minimal fleet can reasonably defeat at once? Usually when fighting against large fleets with a smaller fleet, a point is reached where you have sustained enough damage and the DP ration starts changing. As you've been fighting at a 1.5 ratio disadvantage successfully the entire time, a change in ratio causes an escalating success, though armour and hull damage sustained previously slightly mitigates this.

Taking a notional example of fighting 10 minutes at a 300 battlesize with a 120 DP fleet can plough through 400 DP in that time wherein the fleet the retreats to reset its PPT timer and loses 15 CR and can successfully fight from 100% CR to 40% giving 4 battles, gives 1600 DP. Then lets say a further 200 when the ratio tipping point is reached and fight till CR depletion. So 1800 DP. About 6 of the largest remnant fleets. or 2.5 of the largest bounty fleets. Problem with remnant fleets is that the Radiant is particularily DP efficient but everything is just a rough estimate anyways that varies upon countless variables.

Greatly increased number officers may change the ability to fight at a ratio disadvantage though.

Suggestions / Re: Fighter nerf when swarming a target
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:39:02 AM »
I prefer simpler mechanics. As it is the game is default 300 battle size and max battle size without going into game files is 500. If the game can be balanced so the tipping point is out of 500, I view that as positive balance change. The only problem is that this may make fighters seem worse before that point so ideally, you want a flat progression and that's where the difficulty of balancing by changing stats can occur.

The alternastive of introducing the game mechanics you propose is that they need to be communicated and make sense preferably. Why would wepons deal less damage or the fighters receive more damage as there are more friendly fighters nearby? This might work for a tile turn based game, but not for a simulationist real time game. It would create a visual discreptancy.

Fighter spam isn't really that much of a problem for the player as AI fleets do not fighter spam. For the ones that do, the real danger is bomber type fighters, not the heavy fighter/intercetpor type fighters. Mostly, as the player tend to create ships to fight against peer opponents, anti fighter wepons are often neglected which is why I think the fighter threat from AI seem so overblown. That and fighters inherently make ship loss more likely due to damage spikes.

The balance of spark has nothing to do with that they are drones. It only affects crew lost whihc is a logistical bonus, not a combat bonus. So sparks in itself can be balanced by other means.

If you want to differentiate thematically, by way of a combat malus, a simpler alternative would be to limit its range and/or change its ordnance points so a conscious decision is made to replace logistical bonus with a combat malus.

But that still wouldn't be that thematic as there are only a few drone ships in the game. Thematically, an interesting alternative would be to be able to label any fighters LPC as drone ships which will limit their range to support range in exchange for no crew loses. Kind of what the Tempest's/Shepherd's/Venture's built in drones act like. Perhaps it could be done as a 0 cost hullmod.

General Discussion / Re: Ai core as governor questions
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:12:50 AM »
you can remove AI cores, its only after leaving them for a certain amount of time when you no longer can
It is immediate for governers.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:09:25 AM »
Ion Pulsar isn't that it is a bad weapon in itself, but that there aren't really any ships with that can make use of it. In most cases any ship that can effectively mount an Ion Pulsar is better served by a Heavy Blaster or Phase Lance or Mining Blaster or Antimatter Blaster in that role. Safety override ships work because they are flux efficient but Ion Pulsar is not so they need another soure of damage. It'll have to be a player controlled ship so the ship doesn't waste the shots. A more reliable alternative is Ion beam.

I've used Heavy Burst Laser on a Conquest. It is the only mount with the right arc to shoot down missiles at certain angles. Mostly useful against Hurrican which the Conquest is uniquely vulnerable against.

Paladin PD that only really works on a ship with lots of appropriately placed large mounts. Its relatively high range (Higher than Plasma Cannon or Autopulse Laser) works against it as it will shoot at non-PD targets first.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 28, 2020, 01:44:34 PM »
Thanks for the advice. They were points of comparison. About how comparing a weapon based on a single standard would make all other weapons outside of that standard seem underpointed, so there would be no special reason to point out antimatter blaster in particular, but rather all other wepons. I don't regard it as aggressive. Do you think it is that I try to reply to every signle point megas has made? Or is it the question marks?

General Discussion / Re: Ai core as governor questions
« on: February 28, 2020, 07:19:10 AM »
Ok so I've poked around the internet a bit and can't quite find the answer to my questions and now have some more....

1. What is the advantage of the alpha ai as GOVERNOR? I can't seem to find anything that specifically addresses the bonuses of this.

2. Do they randomly rebel? I've read a few things that appear as if they rebel randomly for no reason, but others that say only if you try to fire them.

3. Do they extend you planetary govern slots past the max human  so for example, you have 12 colonies, max human admins (I'm under the impression you can only have 3 or
4) can you still place ai cores on the excess to remove negative penalties for overgoverning?

Just having a hard some for some reason finding this info on using ai as governor I just cant find it. I know the bonuses for using them on infrastructure. Thanks for any replies!

1) Alpha AI governer have all three colony skills. The normal governers have max 2 colony skills. The player can have 3, but Alpha AI don't count towards any limits.
2) No, they don't. At most if you try to appoint another governer, it vanishes and that colony recieves a -1 stability modifier. Once apppointed as governer, it cannot return to your inventory.
3) Yes.

Suggestions / Re: Tuning fleet composition balance by progression
« on: February 28, 2020, 07:07:46 AM »
I see what you mean. You want to gate away ship progression whilst at the same time reduce the ability of the player to receive money. Which sounds reasonable, but how does that work in a universe where you can create colonies, find blueprints and have them produce the ships for you?

How would that work in a game where boring trading to give money safely is supposed to be part of the gameplay? I think the procurement missions give way too much money for the risk, but on the other hand, if they gave less money it just means that a player who desires to never take up a challenge will just grind for longer.

Currently it's not a grind anyways, if you can go from a normal start of 2 frigates to 5 million credits in 3 hours. So a good start would be to reduce the money given from procurement missions. perhaps instead of normally double the price, you get +20% of the price. Then the black market, both for ships and commodities, can only be accessed by being transponder off. Otherwise you can see, but not interact with it. Perhaps reputation with pirates is needed for buying ships. Perhaps reputation is the absolute gateway for ships and is gated by completing harder bounties or by fighting faction enemies in a commission. Perhaps resigning a commission plunges you in a state of hostility depending on the number of ships you have brought. Is that more of the style you was looking for?

Suggestions / Re: Escort Coordination: Rule for Small Ship PPT
« on: February 28, 2020, 06:45:58 AM »
Depends what you mean by multiround combat. Quick thought experiment of doubling all ship PPT would half the amount of rounds needed. There's a limit to how big a fight you can pick and even then it is a choice. In general you don't need more than 1 round at 500 battlesize or 2 rounds at 300 battlesize to fight the biggest expedition fleets. You have to deliberately seek to fight 3+ of the max size remnant ordos fleets to get any bigger fights. And it seems that next version wil have smaller fleets.

General Discussion / Re: So let's try to find the worst weapon on vanilla
« on: February 28, 2020, 06:36:29 AM »
I don't see where I have placed a personal attack on anyone.

No problem. You can also check what has actually been produced in the production tab in the intel screen (e). If you have queued any other items with the paragon you can also check what also has been produced using that tab.

You should report it. But first you should verify if it is a bug or isn't.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81