Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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.

Topics - Trensicourt

Pages: [1] 2
1
For example, an Astral could have more OP to fill in all its slots but you could add a unique deficit that causes missiles to fire 50% slower. These deficits can be unique across different carriers. This would help dedicated carriers feel more full without making them feel as strong. As a side note, in general I'm in favor of more deficiencies across different ships to make them feel more unique.

2
Suggestions / Make fighters cost deployment points
« on: July 02, 2023, 06:59:37 PM »
I like how converted cargo holds increase the cost of deploying your ships. It makes sense because fighters are mini-ships. They require a lot of the same fundamental components as larger ships with drives do. When it comes to gameplay, I think this also makes sense. Some fighters are drastically more powerful than even a frigate; others are even better as infinite rocket launchers and fluxless PD drones. This has been meta for the past couple years to prioritize fighters in converted cargo bays over mounts of many ships.

On the other hand, we see many dedicated carriers struggle. Many of whom have received consistent buffs but haven't quite found their niche. They are either just floating platforms or underpowered jack-of-all trades. The most recent example is the Legion, whom after many buffs is finally up to par with its peers.

This balance between fighters strength, carrier loadouts, and non-fighter combat ability is difficult. I think we should all tie them together into deployment points. I strongly believe carriers should be somewhat viable on their own without being a full blown battlecarrier like the Legion, but shouldn't be hamstrung on lacking ordnance points like the Astral pre 0.96a. In exchange, we make deploying these ships without these fighters much cheaper.

Therefore, my suggestion is this: We take the concept of deployment penalty from converted cargo bays and apply them to the cost of the ship. This means that any ship with a fighter bay and uses fighters will cost deployment points. Every 5 ordnance points a fighter costs, the ship cost 1 more deployment point with a minimum base deployment point of 1 per fighter. This means a broadsword would increase deployment points by 2 because it has 8 ordnance points. That's a fair trade, because one set of broadswords every X seconds are stronger than some frigates and certainly some civilian ships.

This will gimp ships like the Conder so we make the Conder cost 8 DP from 10 DP. This means it's as effective as before if it had one wing of broadswords but if you choose to use it without fighters, it will still be more competent per DP at 8 instead of 10. Battlecarriers whose effectiveness relies a lot more on its mounts could use a proportionally less impactful DP reduction. For the Legion, that could be 36 DP. This means they are most DP efficient when using low OP fighters but you could build them without it and it would make the Legion cheaper to run. I think you can argue that this is a pretty effective change since a Legion without fighters at 36DP is a comparable warship to a Retribution at 35DP. On the opposite side of the spectrum, an Astral without fighter decks is just a sitting duck and may even lose to certain cruisers. Therefore, a more significant DP cost reduction is needed. The base DP should be a reduction from 50 to 38 DP or -2 DP per each fighter bay it has. A 38 DP Astral may seem OP, but adding all the bombers could easily exceed 3 DP per slot, meaning the DP cost of an Astral could easily exceed its original cost.

Let me know what you guys think. I really do think this has potential to better balance the game and spice up the gameplay.

3
General Discussion / Are [Redacted] too weak?
« on: June 26, 2023, 08:53:10 AM »
Just a general question out there.

They don't feel like an end-game boss to me. I'll be honest, certain fleets in the main storyline are scarier. Even the Doritos are okayish, since you just have to build around their weakness.

I think what makes them seem strong is their officers. But the ships themselves with few exceptions seem arguably meh. Nothing too scary. As long you got enough speed or stopping power to break their momentum, you can hold out. I have some bias since I have been playing this game for a while (maybe not too long by some standards). In general, you can beat most of their fleets without maxing out your DP. In some cases, you can even beat multiple fleets at once as have been show cased.

I don't want them to be too overpowered, but right now they seem like a hodgepodge collective of odd ships that are mostly meh.

4
General Discussion / Executor vs Pegasus
« on: June 17, 2023, 11:50:22 AM »
In short, the Pegasus is the king of missile ships, and the Executor is an versatile tank. Yet both are based on the same chassis and are considered sister ships.

Which is your favorite and why?


5
Just a curious question. It feels very packed for the typical sector. I can only assume that by core worlds, it also implies a really big constellation in the center of it all.

6
It's kind of redundant to have two different hull mods do the same thing as S-mods. Why not differentiate their S-mod bonus as well?

I will keep the Dedicated Targeting Core bonuses but change the Integrated Targeting Unit. The S-mods bonus for the Integrated Targeting Unit enables stacking either a Dedicated Targeting Core or Advanced Targeting Computer. If these hull mods are added, then it changes its bonus range to a flat 15% additional range. Otherwise, ITU retains its original bonus.

7
Suggestions / Cryosleepers should increase max colony size cap
« on: June 05, 2023, 02:20:40 PM »
I think having a Cryosleeper should allow you to have a size 7 colony. Of course, a size 7 colony should be take exponentially longer than size 6 but at least it should make it possible. The amount of size 7 colonies should equate to the amount of Cryosleepers you have. That would mean two size 7 colonies for Vanilla Starsector.

8
Suggestions / Make Trading More Challenging and Dynamic
« on: June 03, 2023, 01:43:03 AM »
Right now, Starsector trading is easiest and most reliable way to make money. From experience, I am able to make millions per month within the 1st cycle of my game. I want Alex to make trading a challenge, but neither a chore or a money printer.

The first question is how do you make millions within the first cycle. The answer is fairly straightforward. Check high demand and supply and buy and sell to make a profit. The nuance is that tariffs cut into those profits. That's fine. Just black market trade in plain sight. The penalties to faction relations are negligible and easily recoverable. This is the only downside of trading. The annoyance of trading is not having enough goods and enough customers to sell. It's easy to outgrow the market with a massive fleet that can buy multiple worlds' worth of goods in one trip.

The second question is why is it so easy? The reasoning is multifaceted. The distance between core worlds are small so fuel costs are low. The maintenance and crew costs for ships are negligible. You can avoid most hostile forces by trading. Easy access industrial skills and cargo hull mods allow for substantial increases in revenue and profitability.

So what would be some adjustments to these issues?

First, remove the storage industrial skill. I think this skill makes trading easier with no thought behind it. Furthermore, it's unrealistic. You bought a ship that can hold 10,000 liters of fuel. It doesn't magically gain an additional 5,000 square liters of fuel storage. At least with built-in hull mods you are physically changing the ship. This makes trading less efficient and the player has to care more about logistics ships.

Second, high trading volumes should attract pirates. This happens in some trading missions. I don't see why pirates don't attack players in general for their trading volume. Pirates should be threatening players for their loot. The more valuable the commercial loot on the player has, the more powerful pirates should be to intercept player fleets. This forces the player to invest in combat ships, officers, and training for skills to defend their goods.

Third, planets and stations should embargo players for a month if they are caught carrying a substantial amount of illegal goods or have extreme levels of suspicion. This means the player can no longer buy or sell ships and goods. However, they can still access the bar. This embargo allows for new character interactions. For example, what if you can bribe officials to let you bypass the embargo?

Fourth, add more competitive merchants fleets to potential reduce shortages and surpluses. It's a cutthroat economy. There should be a constant flow of traffic to plug in shortages and surpluses. Every time there is a shortage, multiple fleets from multiple worlds with shortages, let's say three fleets, should attempt to be launched to solve the shortage. This does not mean each fleet is able to resolve a shortage on their own. Let's say a main trading fleet comes by to resolve the shortage but it will take weeks before it is launched. A lot of smaller merchant fleet could spawn and come by to fill the gaps bit by bit for the early premium of selling these high demand goods.

Fifth, add sector wide events that can lead to shortages and surpluses. The lore of the economy in Starsector is chaotic and fragile, and it should be. We have a bunch of specialized planets in a protectionist economy. This leads to incredible amounts of inefficiencies. For instance, Starsector could have boom and bust cycles for certain industries. This could cause tariffs to dramatically increase, certain black markets to be shut down, and significantly tighter security. In boom times, tariffs could be a lot lower and suspicion of black market goods could be negligible. Players should be incentivized to understand and take advantage of sector politics. An opportune moment could make players go from exploration and colony building to repurposing their entire fleet for trading.

Sixth, add privateers. Factions that don't like players trading with their enemies should do something about it. Factions could employ privateers that target players that had substantial trading with their enemies. They could demand a hefty fine, destroy or take their goods, or even the destruction or transfer of a trade ship.

I think with just some of these changes, trade will feel like a challenge that's dynamic and threatening enough that it forces players to incorporate other facets of the game to survive in the cutthroat trading economy of the game.

9
General Discussion / Are all outcomes to Usurper the same?
« on: May 19, 2023, 04:38:39 PM »
Just as the title said. I got my award no matter how I randomize the dialogue interaction. I went to the pirates and independents and to different characters after each outcome. It seems to be all the same. What matters is what choice you make at the end with the award.

10
Let's call my proposed sub-standard replacement equipment as E-Mods or Efficiency Mods. These Efficiency Mods are different than Efficiency Overhaul because it doesn't cost ordnance points and actually reduces ship performance. These E-Mods can be installed on ships to make them cheaper.  You can remove E-Mods for 50% cheaper and installing E-Mods don't cost money, since you would actually be selling your pristine parts for substandard parts. If you are replacing a D-Mod with a E-Mod, it would cost 30% of restoring. Having an E-Mod would also have other benefits. They would reduce the chance of their D-Mod counterpart occurring, since thematically the parts to replace E-Mod equipment would be cheaper and easier to replace. A warning would pop up saying these mods would essentially do permanent performance damage and won't be refundable until you leave port. You cannot use these E-Mods with their respective S-Mod counterpart. Certain E-Mods also reduces the chances of certain D-Mods from occurring.

Here are some examples that I thought of that could fit into my idea of E-Mods:
  • Dumb-Fire Targeting Systems - All targeting algorithms rely on high speed quantum processors. This refit replaces them with common and cheaper transistor based targeting processors. Reduces maintenance cost by 15% and reduces weapon range and weapon firing rate by 10%.
  • Common Alloy Plating - Most advanced composite armor require Nanoforges to manufacture or repair. This refit replaces them with common alloy armor. Reduces maintenance cost by 15% and armor by 10%. Reduces the chance of Compromised Armor and Structural Damage from occurring.
  • Simplified Hull Design - Simulated generative designs have substantial structural benefits against non-generative designs but require nanoforge level manufacturing methods. Simplifying the hull design allows for quick repairs and assembly by basic heavy machinery. Reduces maintenance cost by 15% and hull strength by 10%. Reduces the chance of Compromised Hull, Compromised Storage, and Structural Damage from occurring.
  • Analog Power Systems - Replaces some digital power systems with analog power systems. Brute force power systems utilize cheaper parts albeit at efficiency costs. Reduce maintenance cost by 15% and flux capacity and venting speed by 10%. Reduces the chances of Faulty Power Grid occurring.

Most shipyard production models would have E-mods since most shipyards cannot produce the same quality of equipment as before. D-mods would be exclusive to battle damage or heavy industries without nanoforges. Therefore, when you buy ships, you will get a mix of E-Mods and D-Mods, depending on the manufacturer.

Installing D-Mods have been suggested before but they never made sense to me.  Gameplay wise, most people would add a D-Mod for Derelict Operations. Realistically, no captain would deliberately cause structural damage to their pristine battleship. An E-Mod as proposed would be a realistic compromise. You won't get the same battle scars and you get to save on budget at a slight cost to performance. This is something I can definitely see NPCs utilize ln terms of lore and players for gameplay optimization.

11
Lore:
"The blueprint was auctioned off to a small mercenary organization known as the Free Star Combine, a militant subsidiary of the Ko Combine, and forgotten." - Starsector In-game description

Right now there are mercenary fleets and lore supporting it. I think you should be able to hire a mercenary fleet at bars or on comms. I wouldn't be surprised if this is already planned.

You would hire them for a percent of their base cost plus a percent of their maintenance cost every month. Perhaps for a story point as well. The fleet will follow you for one cycle. You can extend the contract whenever you approach it. However, if the fleet is badly damaged, then the mercenary company will ask you pay a compensation fee or it quits.

You can tell the fleet to hide/stop/follow. If you tell it to hide, it will do its best to keep out of everyone's sensor range. In hyperspace, it will go dark and just hover in some corner. If you tell it to stop, it will stay as best as it can and try to steer away from navigation issues. If you tell it follow, it will follow you. If the mercenary fleet is too far away and you are not nearby comms, your mercenary fleet will not respond to you.

Hiring mercenary ships is just like buying a ship, except you are just renting it for 10% of its base cost per month. It comes preconfigured and you cannot adjust its loadout. You take care of its maintenance. If it gets destroyed without recovery upon returning to a friendly station, you are charged with the cost of that ship.

I feel either idea works fine for the game and could add some mercenary flavor into the game. Perhaps as a player you'll meet some legendary ships, their captains, and or fleets.

12
Suggestions / Storm Needler needs a rebalance
« on: May 17, 2023, 10:50:56 AM »
From the wiki it says:
"The Storm Needler is an incredibly efficient shield killer, boasting roughly the same flux cost as a Mark IX Autocannon while offering superior DPS. However, it fares worse against armor due to lower per-hit damage while having less range and the highest OP cost of any ballistic weapon."

True but it also costs 10 OP more. 10 OP is a big difference. Not only that, the range is a whopping 300 less and it tickles armor. I can't seem to get this weapon to be worth its weight. Furthermore, if I needed to, I could just get two heavy needlers and buff them with Expanded Magazines, which mind you now also gives 50% recharge reduction when built-in as a S-mod.

So am I crazy or is this weapon oddly tuned?

13
Personally, I love SpeedUp, Fuel Siphoning and Supply Forging. SpeedUp helps with slow gameplay, allowing me to focus on what's fun. Fuel Siphoning and Supply Forging provides me a dynamic choice to survive in the abyss of space and clear up scrap I don't need.

Also a shoutout to Progressive S-Mods. I think the implementation is fantastic for S-mods.

14
Just why?

It doesn't make sense thematically or for balance. Thematically because deploying for combat is different from daily use. Balance because there are a million exceptions, and current biases, such as low-tech being punished for it.

I don't think I am the first to question or the last to, at least for this update. Separating these two concepts allows for much easier tuning, balancing, and for some, removing the need for hull-mods.


15
Flying conventional ships against Doritos is a toss up. Sometimes your fleet is the perfect combo and other times it is not. The reason why this matters if because most of the time, you will encounter the Doritos by accident and have the itch to fight against it, often in a conventional fleet. By conventional, I mean non-phase oriented fleet with basic trade/explorer support.

One of the most powerful weapons for phase ships is the Ion-Pulser + Expanded Magazine + Integrated Targeting Unit. You need around ~150 OP of phase ships with officers, and you should be able to annihilate the Doritos. A good overkill example is 3 Dooms with Sabots, Burst Lasers, and Ion Pulsers per Dorito aka 6 Dooms. Slap Officers on each one of them with Systems Expertise and watch as the Doritos struggle to survive. Your Dooms will circle around the Doritos, dumping absurd amount of mines and going around their shield cover to disable their engines and weapons. Honestly though, it makes you realize why Tri-tachyon are so easily able to steal and recover domain tech. Other options are using phase ships with tons of overloads, since you are only fighting two ships with a dozen or more.

Some of you know this but, the reason why EMP is so important is not because of the weapons. After all, phase ships generally don't care much so against Dorito weaponry. The reason why is their mobility. If you give them time to run away, they'll likely be combat ready in 5 seconds. This is why conventional fleets, especially those that lack constant long-range pressure struggle. The Doritos would just snipe one ship off after another cause your fleet either can't catch up or there isn't pressure to prevent them from recovering.

Furthermore, when the Doritos die and die, they spawn fighters that have a flight pattern that are very powerful against immobile targets. Phase ships are anything but immobile.

Pages: [1] 2