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: The Pilgrim's Path (07/19/22)

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 - Morbo513

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] DynaSector 1.4.7
« on: April 06, 2022, 03:22:56 AM »
Some things I want to say (its 03:30 ish here at the moment so sorry if this is a bit disjointed):

This mod was from my perspective one of my fundamental game-enhancement mods. It was fairly clear, easy-ish to tell when it was doing something and made my experience really fun when I had the compatible faction mods installed.

The *feel* of DynaSector is not something I have seen/had since I stopped playing with it, even to this day. Similar features to what it had are supposedly spread through current mods that are out and I have played with, but I have yet to feel like I'm playing with DynaSector again, even with some very similar vanilla features available.

As someone who has been around a bit, this mod in particular spiced up the experience for me, and sometimes I want to go back to 0.7/0.8 to play with it, but there's just too many features lost from newer versions for me to feel like I would comparatively enjoy the old versions now.

I guess what I am trying to say is I feel there is a hole that DynaSector used to occupy in the modding niches, one that hasn't been filled since its absence. Recently people have said stuff like 'oh everything DynaSector did is being done by mods or vanilla now anyway' but honestly none of those mods (and I have tried most of the relevant ones to my experience with DynaSector) (though vanilla in my opinion has made some strides in this), seem to make the sector feel quite as alive as DynaSector did years ago.

Thank you Dark.Revenant for making this gem of a mod. I know its a fair few years later, but I hope you're proud of what you accomplished with it. :)

I agree overall. The thing I miss most is the diversity of NPC loadouts - currently they're all more or less homogenous with their own faction. The player's allowed to take what they want from wherever, but not NPCs for some reason. This sorta makes sense for the more doctrinally strict factions (and not so much for the likes of pirates and independents) - but even then, it'd be nice to see a few non-faction weapons amongst enemy fleets every now and then.

It'd be nice to see ships and weapons sold in open/black-markets, that don't originate from the faction operating it - giving the impression that other fleets are out there selling their loot, and giving the player a little more access to equipment they wouldn't otherwise be able to due to commission locks.

Suggestions / Re: Simplified target info
« on: April 06, 2022, 01:06:25 AM »
So I'm being clear, the suggestion is for weapon, target, name etc. information to be hidden - not removed - with a button-press, toggle and/or option to show it all again.

Suggestions / Re: Simplified target info
« on: April 05, 2022, 06:10:53 AM »
Added a screenshot for illustration purposes
what extraneous information is even shown?

Honestly, everything that isn't shown when mousing over a non-target ship, it's all easy enough to intuit. And for when that information is relevant and needed, you'd still be able to access it. It'd just be hidden (by default) until the player wants to see it. This could be a toggle in options, in addition to a hotkey.

Suggestions / Show/hide extended target info
« on: April 05, 2022, 04:47:37 AM »
The information presented about a targeted ship can be a bit much - taking a lot of screen-space, obscuring and distracting from other elements of the battle. Much of it's superfluous.

The suggestion:
When targeting a ship, the bare minimum info is displayed; Hull, Flux, CR and the armour readout - and an officer icon, if applicable.
Pressing a button (toggle or hold) - or a toggle in game options - shows the extended target info.

Having the ships in your fleet isn't the same as deploying them in combat though. By the end-game, frigates are pretty disposable - but generally, because of the fleet cap, you can't fly around with a large reserve of them - unless your fleet is mostly frigates, which generally isn't an optimal choice. The combat map can still have a strict limit of ships deployed simultaneously, without the surplus having to be left at home.

General Discussion / Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
« on: March 02, 2021, 09:51:49 AM »
Reiterating my suggestions on the fighter issue:

Give fighters an evasion rate - meaning projectiles fired from non-fighters will pass through more often. Anything targeting fighter specifically would be guaranteed hits (as long as the projectile connects), ditto with splash-damage. This means you won't get fighters constantly blocking high-power single-shots.
In turn, reduce fighters' health/armour/shields

Reduce non-bomber damage vs normal ships to 25%, meaning fighter fighters are just that and not very useful for much else except as fodder.

Allow PD (and maybe small) weapons to pass through friendly ships and wreckage to hit targeted fighters, since the fighters can fire from behind an enemy ship to hit another, or hover above a ship/wreck to become essentially invulnerable for a time.

Make fighter wings have to dock to replenish their wing, instead of being constantly reinforced.

Tie replacement rate and the carriers' CR together; each fighter replaced costs CR - making attrition much more dangerous for carrier-based fleets, and enabling the neutralisation of fighters/their carriers by simply destroying a lot of them.

Suggestions / Re: NPC fleets "taking" missions outside the core
« on: November 10, 2020, 10:07:44 PM »
Running into fleets that are going after the same objective as you, and the decision of whether to fight them over it would be cool. But a lot of the time going after bounties, probes etc is trying to locate the system and target - it could potentially lead to the AI snipping objectives well before the player's found the system and could be very frustrating. For it to be "fair" the AI would have to search themselves, but that's a lot of routines and resources to dedicate to something the player might not even engage with, and probably still be frustrating for the same reason.
 I like it in spirit, but I think implementation could be abstracted with scenarios, eg. you approach a probe and get a blurb about how some scavengers ran and went dark as you approached, and decide to ambush you after you've fought any automated defences. Alternatively if the player fleet severely outmatches them, it's a standard enemy-disengagement battle/option, their (and player's) transponder status and faction could also be variable factors.

Suggestions / Weapon group modes - Fire vs Select
« on: November 04, 2020, 04:50:35 AM »
An optional mode, allowing the player to fire a given weapon group by pressing its corresponding control(s). This is my preference for Mechwarrior games, as opposed to swapping between the groups then firing them individually, and I think the same would be true of Starsector. It feels faster and allows for simultaneous manual-fire of multiple weapons groups.

Suggestions / Re: Smaller fighters and friendly weapons bypass
« on: August 27, 2020, 11:33:57 AM »
Your points are kinda contradicting each other. You want the ships to have an easier time vs fighters but at the same time you want to make them smaller. Which isn't just a cosmetic change as you said, it's a balance one too, and a big one. The whole point of fighters having current size is so they can be hit with ship weapons easily. If they were smaller only beams would be able to hit them, or you'd need to rebalance every single weapon in the game which isn't happening.
They're not mutually exclusive.
I find Fighters' size too large too, since they can easily block missiles and heavy munitions not meant for them, often enough for it to be frustrating. Making them smaller makes them harder to hit, yes, but it also makes them less of an obstacle in firing at full-size ships. Depending on the degree of size reduction, this could balance out the suggested PD friendly-ship bypass and what I'm about to add.
A balance pass will need to be done at some point prior to full release, and it might be worth the effort if it mitigates the effectiveness of fighter swarms without nerfing them into oblivion. It also addresses the disbelievability of fighters attacking targets from behind another, yet the target not being able to hit back for risk of FF or otherwise wasting shots on wrecks, terrain etc.

With fighters vs full-size ships, I'd like further changes on top of those suggested in OP:
 Projectiles from large weapons punch-through fighters, dealing the projectile's full damage to the fighter but continuing on to hit what was behind.
IPDAI allows Medium weapons to bypass friendly ships when targeting fighters
Fighters deal reduced damage to full-size ships except dedicated anti-"capital" weapons - Ie. bombs, torpedoes and gunship "primary" armaments.

Suggestions / Re: Indicate overload duration with flux bar
« on: August 25, 2020, 03:34:59 AM »
This would be great

I agree that the distribution of ship classes amongst fleets is very top-heavy, but I don't believe arbitrary restrictions on the number of ships of each weight class is the way to go about addressing it.

In my opinion, Frigates, and maybe to a lesser degree Destroyers, need something extra to keep them not only viable but attractive up til end-game and help them stay competetive with the big bois.

For example, frigates and destroyers are almost universally able to replenish some CR and maybe some armour once per battle by temporarily retreating off-map - this could be enhanced by support ships with a specific hullmod. Or maybe this applies to all ships, just Frigates and Destroyers get exponentially more value out of it and take much less time to complete a mid-battle pit-stop - their speed is an inherent advantage in this regard.
But that's just one example off the top of my head, there are other ways to give especially Frigates more utility in combat without compromising how they fit into it directly.

I had another thought - How about giving larger ships less PPT instead of more (CR degradation unchanged)? = Frigates have longest PPT and potential for conserving CR, while captials still have the greatest overall length of CR to burn through?

Very cool designs, looking forwards to trying it out when I next play SS

Suggestions / Re: More Radio Chatter
« on: August 03, 2020, 04:07:52 AM »
I think it could work well as an audio-cue for close-by fleets. Different tones/types of chatter could be used to indicate their disposition, ie attacking/neutral/fleeing, whether they're running dark, transponder off etc. Alternatively or in addition, different factions could have their own chatter-type to further characterise them.

Suggestions / Re: Mid-End game threat of the galaxy: The Scorn
« on: July 31, 2020, 05:23:55 AM »
Love the concept. Infested tech and bio-ships are cool as ***. A lot of overhead on content creation, but would love to see it. And yeah, a "bigger threat" universal to all the in-game factions is a good way to keep escalating the action when NPCs can no longer pose a threat to the player.

The Scorn worlds could be retaken if successfuly invaded; it could function sorta like tech-mining, but requiring a large flow of pretty much every resource, to the point of being guaranteed unprofitable, barely sustainable until the clean-up is finished. A planet's resources would be reduced over time depending on how long it's been infested. This would allow the human factions to come back from the brink, with some effort, otherwise it'd probably be unwinnable and just a matter of how long you can defend the last few colonies.

Suggestions / More mount types
« on: June 01, 2020, 10:49:04 PM »
Weapon-mounts that imbue the mounted weapon with a given property or effect - some of these effects could be those of a weapon-related hullmod, or otherwise change its stats/behaviour.
The more interesting examples I can think of:
EMP-damage - Converts 5% of weapon's damage into EMP.
Ammo Reserve - Weapons mounted will have double missiles/charges/expanded magazines.
Twin-Link - The weapon is duplicated in an underside mount, increasing its OP-cost by 50% but reducing the weapons' flux/second by 33%.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21