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

Suggestions / Re: Change the naming of High and Low tech.

« on: February 16, 2024, 06:59:50 AM »

Anyone spending more than a couple of hours with the game will understand how things work, even if they initially assumed high tech ships are objectively better.

But ok let's argue that it brings confusion. Would we then need to change the name for Gigacannon? Since it sounds like the most powerful thing in the game yet it's one of the weakest guns for large mounts. Supplies are needed for ship repairs and not metals, that also intuitively doesn't make much sense.

What I'm trying to say is, taking everything literally is usually not a good idea in games. Things are (most of the time) named so they fit the lore and be easily memorable. I remember threads like these before and it's always people suggesting something extremely convoluted which sounds horrible, or making up too literal names. The current system is fine, we don't need flashing red arrows to tell people what's what.

as explained with the buffalo => buffalo 2 "issue"
(you don't really lower the techlevel of a ship by removing cargo space and turning it into weapons, do you?)

there are ways to make it both, easier to understand *and* fit the lore better.

by simply going "high automation" "low automation"

2

Suggestions / Re: Change the naming of High and Low tech.

« on: February 16, 2024, 04:59:24 AM »

That's just a mindset new players have to get rid of. If they can't adapt to that then I don't know how they'll make it through the rest of the game.

I never understood that "they'll just have to adapt" mindset.

in any case the "HT better than LT" thoughtprocess isn't the only thing I've pointed out.

it's also stuff like the buffalo.

the buffalo is high-tech. yet it doesn't really scream being high tech in any way. Hell, it's even used by the church. And the hegemony version even uses ballistic weapons.

but the buffalo2 is low-tech.
how does changing cargo-space into guns make a high-tech ship into a low-tech one?

turning it into high-automation/low-automation would at least easily explain that one, since more new stuff (weapons) that don't have the required support structures in place obviosuly would result in the automation of the ship overall going down and requiring more hands on board.


this suggestion is both, a "hey, new players already have enough stuff they need to worry about, how about we don't confuse them more than necessary"
as well as a "hey, the high-tech / low-tech could be rephrased in a way that's less ambiguous"

3

Suggestions / Change the naming of High and Low tech.

« on: February 16, 2024, 03:33:19 AM »

the naming of High and Low tech as exactly those frequently suggests newer players that high-tech hulls, being higher-tech are always the best choice.

it also results in some infrequent questions like "why is the buffalo high tech" and alike

I would suggest renaming them to (only just my personal suggestion, if someone else has better ideas, please share them)

high-complexity
and
low-complexity

or high-automation / low-automation

that way they still fit the same narrative as high/low however they lose the stigma of "high tech is always what you want" that is enforced by almost all strategy games out there, where tech advantage is a thing

4

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: February 10, 2024, 02:39:51 PM »

because I don't know where else to put this.
and it caaaaan be handwaved away by claiming that those "billions" don't only count humans and the millions explicitly count humans only
or the billions also count those that die refusing to be inspected, while the millions are those that died by AI hands...

not a typo per se, but still...
feels wrong

5

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: February 08, 2024, 02:35:51 PM »

Slightly toned down the difficulty of the Tri-Tachyon related crisis

    And increased the time the attack force spends preparing to depart by two weeks

gotta say, slightly confused by this change.

the TT crisis, from my experience, is the easiest by far.

just chill above Hybrasil with a moderate fleet of like 2 to 3 cruisers, or at least one capable capital and just kill trade convoys for an ingame month or so.

they drop enough supplies to keep you topped up
they spawn often enough thanks to two TT colonies
and they are easy enough to deal with.

and the bounty hunter didn't even show up until long after I got all the way up to 300 and signed the nice "almost-cartel" contract and had enough story points to just ditch them when I didn't feel like dealing with them.


/edit:
I have been informed that, apparently, there should have been a raid happening at the end of the crisis
which either
* never triggered for me
* got canceled by me just jumping to hybrasil making the deal within like 2 ingame days after getting to 300
* or happened while I wasn't looking, since I never left the hyperspace around hybrasil for the entire 300 points

6

Suggestions / Add "total stability" to the stability tooltip of colonies

« on: February 07, 2024, 08:32:37 AM »

that "stability 10" is nice and all, but I can't, at a glance, know if adding a commerce center will throw me down below 10 or if I'm still capped.

a "total stability: 12", a "Stability 12 / 10" anything along those lines, would be amazing

7

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: December 04, 2023, 09:00:43 AM »

Hanan Pachas planet description reads:
> A crematory world laid to waste by forbidden planet-cracker weapons
> Hanan Pacha was razed by forbidden planet-cracker weapons

Hanan Pacha in the true and accurate is described as being
> destroyed by Planet-killer


I would suggest to either change hanans planet description to state "planet-killer" instead.
Or, if you (understandably) want to keep the cool name for a super weapon...
can we make the Opis incident mention planet-crackers instead?

'cause ... that's the planet that cracked 

8

Suggestions / Re: What should the Historian ramble about?

« on: August 17, 2023, 10:49:08 PM »

Assuming it's still canon, I'd love to hear more about the Astrals in the Hegemony navy (as per its description)

> The Astral is perhaps the most technologically advanced capital ship that can be seen in the Sector today. Few serve with the Hegemony due to the high technological requirements that it imposes on orbital docks.

And a long winded thought about the condor that goes nowhere (also based on the description)

> Some in the sector argue even the Domain, with all their technological know-how, relied on conversions of this type to make more efficient use of a merchant fleet during times of escalated hostilities. Others point out that it is unclear how ubiquitous this approach was - there could have been fleets of Condors roaming Domain space, but there is scarce evidence one way or the other. Such details were all lost in the Collapse.



other than that

maybe war-stories
notable ships and captains
general stuff about the domain (maybe comparing living conditions pre-and post-collapse)
some musing about the first time hyper-space was used to travel / about how it was first discovered
some more musing about the first time gates were used

9

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: May 30, 2023, 01:50:53 AM »

typo, inconsistency, your choice

all 4 explorarium frigates are called Drone
both explorarium destroyers Drone
explorarium Cruiser Drone

all 2 remnant frigates are called Droneship
remnant destroyers Droneship and Droneship-Carrier
remnant Cruiser Droneship Cruiser and Heavy Droneship

so there's a clear rule being established.
Drone => Explorarium
Droneship => Remnant

now off to the capitals.

Guardian: Drone Battleship so far so good. explorarium, drone. as expected
Radiant: Drone Battleship... and the rule is broken. Maybe it's by choice to avoid droneship battleship?

Nova: Drone Battlecruiser... nope. 'cause Droneship Cruiser was deemed to be fair game, so Droneship Battlecruiser should be too




also out of curiosity...
Is it Philip Andrada (the entirety of the game) or
Phillip Andrada (the entirety of the true-and-accurate)

same with Hanan Pacha (the entirety of the game) or
Hana Pacha (true and accurate tm)

10

Bug Reports & Support / 0.96 !! is the centurion (LG) system intentionally worthless for the ship?

« on: May 05, 2023, 12:06:07 PM »

or was it an oversight?



seeing how AAF kinda does nothing for 1 missile and 6 energy mounts

11

Bug Reports & Support / 0.96 !!! New Astral has the red and green light switched again

« on: May 05, 2023, 09:59:11 AM »

The new astral has the green light on the left side
and the red one on the right side.

this has been fixed on the old sprite just recently and now it's back

12

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: April 20, 2023, 06:51:01 AM »

The Historian talking about Kanta says:
>Oh yes, she had a name like anyone else once. One wonders if it's very expensive biomods or periodic cyrosleep that keeps her going.

should be cryosleep

13

Suggestions / Re: Rework the Light Machine Gun description because it has conflicting numbers

« on: August 02, 2022, 11:27:18 PM »

They super don't. And just as far as stuff "really" in-universe, the relative ship scales are a bit off, too. So stuff like the in-game rate of fire for a weapon really doesn't translate into its in-universe rate of fire at all for several different reasons, if that makes sense.

Just to clarify, because I see that my initial post seems to be confusing. I don't want the wording to be "realistic" or anything and the glock/LMG-not-LMG was more of an attempt at humor.

My point is more along the lines of:

Is the specification of "1200 rpm" in the description even needed?
Or could it just be rephrased to "Any weapon that employs chemical propellant to fire inert projectiles at over 1200 rounds per minute a sufficiently high enough rate can be classified as a light ship-mounted machine gun"

Seeing how it not only conflicts with numbers readily available in game (which is where the joke about the LMG not being an LMG comes in), but with numbers in general being removed more and more from descriptions as updates progress.
Old numbers like the "45m killradius on the flak"
The "480mm-atropos torpedo"
The "two 120mm L/89 barrels of the hephaestos"
The "550mm-reaper"
The "1.8mm Schwarzschild radius Mjolnir"
and a bunch of others that I most likely missed.

14

Suggestions / Rework the Light Machine Gun description because it has conflicting numbers

« on: August 02, 2022, 03:25:28 AM »

The part of the description that is most troublesome is this line right here:
Any weapon that employs chemical propellant to fire inert projectiles at over 1200 rounds per minute can be classified as a light ship-mounted machine gun

Not only
does this imply a small handfire weapon (a glock18 for example, according to google has a fire rate of 1200 rpm) duct taped to the hull of a ship qualifies to be called a "light machine gun"

It also
does imply that the VULCAN is a light machine gun (it has a rpm of 1200 and certainly fits the other parts of the description)

And last but most imporatantly
it does imply that the LMG is not an LMG because it fires less shots per minute than the vulcan. Which thus is lower than the required "1200 rpm" to be classified as an LMG

15

Blog Posts / Re: The Pilgrim's Path

« on: July 23, 2022, 10:57:59 AM »

[...] The church gives me eastern orthodox vibes, bending rules, reading through the lines, and the general dislike for technology with them trying to have everything as simple as possible. [...]

If the church gives you eastern orthodox vibes, then you should be totally happy that the image looks as it does tbh.

Spoiler

[close]

also you should just accept that your vision of a games faction seems to diverge from the vision of said games creators.
just chill and either accept it, or make a mod to change it would be my suggestion