Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

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 - Amoebka

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66
1
Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« on: November 27, 2022, 09:51:39 PM »
I'm with Alex on this one. Tossing fighter bays on everything makes the game messy, and is the most common shared feature of low-quality mods. Players already have a choice of doing that themselves with converted hangars, and the new support fighter and hullmod will expand on that playstyle more, but it shouldn't become the standart for the game as a whole.

2
Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« on: November 25, 2022, 05:31:38 AM »
I think this is mostly going to be good for hybrid ships like Odyssee or Venture, where you can outsource PD to a few wings of cheap fighters. Spending for Converted Hangar AND DTT AND fighters just so they can do PD duty - is PD really an issue for the line cruisers?
No, the issue is lack of firepower of the only sensible build (1000 range ballistics + beams). Being able to bolt on additional weapon mounts fixes that, especially if bombers aren't prohibited. The usual 2 HVD + 1 Mauler + 2 Graviton + 1 Ion becomes a lot scarier when you add infinitely regenerating atropos to it.

3
Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« on: November 25, 2022, 12:48:17 AM »
What new support hullmod?
"Defensive targeting array" - makes all fighters tethered to the carrier and increases their anti-fighter/missile damage. From Alex's twitter. Straight up stealing user ideas from the official suggestion forum, devs truly have no shame these days.  ;D

4
Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« on: November 25, 2022, 12:13:48 AM »
I think the reveal of the new support fighter hullmod is a big deal for this topic. Both Falcon and Eagle are excellent CH platforms, brought down by the fact that no good support fighters exist for them (Xyphos is rather pointless with all the beams they already have).

If it will be possible, I will experiment with CH support bombers on both.

5
Suggestions / Re: Improvement for early and late game: Increase weapon loot
« on: November 24, 2022, 09:41:51 PM »
Battle loot is already easily the best non-modded source of weapons in the long term, excepting rare weapons that you happen to have a blueprint and heavy industry for. It's the market selection that's pretty limited.
The best source of weapons is a military contact on Sindria. You can use their faction blueprints for nanoforge contracts, which have all common weapons in the game. With weapons being relatively cheap, you can stock up on everything even with lower production limits.
Shame it will be gone next patch.

6
General Discussion / Re: Why do fighters in the setting still use pilots?
« on: November 21, 2022, 04:57:11 AM »
The setting is supposed to be grimderp, so pointless loss of human life is expected.

7
His fleet comp is SO Brawler spam, whih is why he always has control over objectives.

Personally, I have being forced to play for points. It reduces the amount of viable strategies in the late game, and, unlike some, I don't enjoy abusing the few broken fleets over and over and over.

Enemy fleets blatantly breaking officer limits (of yeah, the player totally can have 12 level 6 officers with the right skills and mercs! you don't? your fault for playing the game wrong, lmao!), they don't need more DP as well.

8
The "buff" I would prefer to see for it is converting the fighter wing into a support one. Perhaps also lowering the OP penalty and prohibiting bombers outright.

There's little value in using normal fighters in CH destroyers/cruisers, you might as well get a proper carrier.

9
General Discussion / Re: Regarding FPS counter I see in-game?
« on: November 17, 2022, 02:41:37 AM »
I believe "idle" refers to the CPU load, while the framerate is determined by the GPU. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

10
Suggestions / Re: Gryphon AI range finding issue?
« on: November 16, 2022, 01:20:47 PM »
Gryphon is not the only victim of this - Buffalo Mk. II is another excellent example; and in this case you cannot simply use a long range medium weapon to force it to stay away
You can give it a tac laser with ITU at least. You can force timid in faction doctrine, but then you need officers in all actual combat ships, which is not doable at the stage where you want to use Buffalo mk2.

11
Suggestions / Re: Gryphon AI range finding issue?
« on: November 14, 2022, 12:39:06 PM »
This has nothing to do with an officer. There are 2 factors at play here:
1) AI doesn't consider missile weapons when choosing optimal engagement range.
2) A ship only equipped with PD weapons considers them their main armament.
This means that a ship with only missiles and PD weapons will try to close in and engage with PD weapons. A ship with only missiles and no PD weapons will act timid.
You can alleviate the issue somewhat by using a timid officer, but it's not ideal. Better to just give the Gryphon a HVD and ITU. Plenty of OP for that.

12
Suggestions / Re: New Player Experience SUCKS
« on: November 14, 2022, 05:31:52 AM »
I think a workable approach is to add a selection of optional dedicated tutorial missions to the Galatian academy, unlocked after the initial campaign tutorial (and explicitly tell players to go check those out instead of sending them to Corvus). So instead of a huge linear tutorial you have multiple smaller quests, each explaining some game aspect in detail, which can be done in any order or skipped entirely. To an extent the academy already works like that, but I would suggest doubling down and having these tutorial missions be more blatant and leaning on the 4th wall with hints and explanations, like the initial linear tutorial.

13
Suggestions / Re: New Player Experience SUCKS
« on: November 14, 2022, 12:36:36 AM »
The one thing I always see screwing new players in every single lets play is autofit. Everyone just presses the button without thinking much (admittedly, that's how it advertises itself), sometimes when not even docked at a market, and ends up with a terrible loadout with half the weapon slots empty. There needs to be a bright red warning flashing all over the screen, screaming that autofit only uses weapons you have in your cargo or can buy from the current market, and those are insufficient for a decent fit 99% of the time.

An even more radical solution might be to create a "stock" variant for each ship, using only open market common weapons, but in a reasonable way, and ensure that every market always sells those weapons in large quantities, so at least autofitting at a market is guaranteed to make a working ship.

In general, it feels like the game doesn't explain the importance of loadout design to new players. People just assume that autofits are sufficient and don't start looking into the system until tens of hours into the game.

14
Mods / Re: [0.95a] Caymon's Ship Pack v1.2.0
« on: November 11, 2022, 10:36:44 AM »
This bounding polygon stuff super doesn't matter for anything larger than a fighter, unless you do literal hundreds of vortices.

15
Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Terraforming and Station Construction (v8.1.6)
« on: November 08, 2022, 06:09:22 AM »
Irradiated planets without the irradiated condition shouldn't actually exist in the vanilla game. The core world generation is a somewhat special case because it inconsistently ignores planetgen rules for whatever inane reason.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66