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: 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.

Topics - Mondaymonkey

Pages: [1] 2
Suggestions / Autopulse Laser flux generation mechanic.
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:09:47 PM »
First to be said: I like Autopulse Laser as it is now. Perhaps, changing the description would be wiser than changing a flux mechanic.

However, current description says:

Numerous built-in capacitors are at the core of this extremely efficient, yet potent energy weapon.

Which probably means it should have (and rely on) it's own caps. So, firing causes it fill it's own caps, not the ship caps, while reloading process obviously conjugated with transferring flux from built-in caps to hull's caps (to be vented after). That even give sense to it's reloading nature.

That also means, it shouldn't generate any flux from firing, but do it while recharging instead. On the one hand, this would make it even better alpha-strike weapon, on the other hand this may causes problems, as player can not turn off reloading process (and flux generation) in critical situation or/and close to overflux. So, not sure would it be buff or nerf, especially in AI hands.

Suggestions / "Quote Selected" button.
« on: September 07, 2020, 02:36:41 AM »
Suggestion related to forum, not game. Not sure if it belong "suggestions" section. Please move it where it should if I wrong.

Idea is damn simple - to have button "Quote Selected" right next to "Insert Quote" in forum interface. Do the same as "insert quote" link each post have, with a minimal difference it uses only selected text, not whole message.

[quote author=Name link=topic=12345.msg123456#msg123456 date=1234567890]
Selected text.

I see that function in many other forums, and it is great. If you want your message be smaller, no need of editing a quote, which is the mortal sin, BTW. Please forgive me if that function exist and I can't find it. Also, if forum engine does not allow that - not a big deal, i just wish to know that if so.

Suggestions / Separate industry for producing ship hulls.
« on: August 23, 2020, 01:32:50 AM »
This one is sober, I swear.

Each and every modded (and vanilla, being fair) faction must have a heavy industry/orbital works if they wish to use their own ships in patrols. Even more, they literally obligated to use NF if they wish hight ship quality. If player uses several faction mods, all of them saturated market with a huge amount of heavy machinery/supplies/heavy armaments and usually not creating enough demand of them, so orbital works with pristine NF can suddenly became less profitable to player, than light industry or fuel. IMO it shouldn't.

Suggestion: separate "shipyard industry", that produce hulls only, consuming heavy machinery and heavy armaments. Can have several tiers with different impact on fleet size and quality. NF does the boost for that. Heavy industry loose hull production and second tier (orbital work) should be replaced with something else/removed. NF installed increase production, but nothing more.

BTW side suggestion: light industry can also use NF. (contribute bonus only to domestic and luxury goods, not drugs).

Predicted result: modded factions now would be obligated to have "shipyards", that will create demand not production. And having several tiers of that will add possibility to get desirable ship quality for that faction even without a NF (should be rare, not as in heavily modded game we have now, where you can usually see couple dozens of them and a half is pristine). For player it could be useful to build "shipyard" not heavy industry to be able to build ships without risk of punitive expeditions because of marketshare.

Obvious problem: Yup, additional structure that will eat both industry and building slot. Nothing more, than reason to have more colonies. See nothing really bad here.

Suggestions / Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« on: August 22, 2020, 12:06:08 PM »
I will not spent time to point the problem, as it well-known.

Suggestion: maximal amount of additional vents/caps is tied to percentage of filled mounts. Like, if you outfit capital ship, that have only 40% of mounts filled, you can not have more than 50*0.4=20 caps/vents (60*0.4=24 for LD3 skill). Bigger mounts contribute to total "mounts fill value" more than smaller.

Justification: it is looks like flux distribution isn't easy thing (lore, descriptions, etc), so it is should be significantly easier to dissipate/accumulate generated flux, if vents/caps are located closer to source. Hulls are probably designed in a way, that some vents/caps batteries are dedicated to serve specific mounts, they are close to, and using them for other mounts will lead to decreasing their general efficiency.

Obvious contras: That concept also requires some low-OP solutions to fill mounts of all sizes and types, to be present in game.

P.S. Yes, I am drunk again! ;D

Bug Reports & Support / Double debris fields.
« on: July 22, 2020, 09:03:59 AM »
Yes, I understand it is a known problem, that one debris field will prevent player from scavenging another under it. I didn't found topic, that describe next situation:

If player encounter derelict object with guards (like Domain era probe with some derelict protectors) battle he won will create a debris field. If player choose to scavenge initial object  it will create another debris field in exactly the same place, making one of them unavailable (did not remember which), unless player find a spot on rim, where they not overlap.

To explain better: after a defender battle choose leave, not scavenge. Wait a couple days to object orbit out of battle debris field and scavenge it there. Two debris fields are now separate.

IMO defender battle shouldn't make separate debris field. Loot should be added for initial objects loot.

Suggestions / Subcaliber covers.
« on: July 18, 2020, 11:04:35 PM »
If player use weapon smaller than mount size it looks bad. Why not add decorative covers, similar to covers we have for empty mounts, that would visually change mount size for smaller one?

Example. Paragon large energy turret and graviton beam.

THAT IS NOT ACTUAL COVERS SHOULD BE USED! Only concept. Something better should be drawn.

Suggestions / Option to forbid blueprints.
« on: June 24, 2020, 08:01:02 AM »
Can we have "forbidden" column in a faction's doctrine screen similar to "prioritize"?

Yes, I know, I can just prioritize some other hull from a same role to effectively nullify frequency of unwanted hulls in a fleet. But sometimes it make add too many ships of those role, as they "prioritized" now, leaving less space for ships you really want.

Also, I am aware that real auto-resolve fleet strength is the same no matter what is prioritized, as detachments generated based on a fleet points. It might be just cosmetic problem, but it is annoying to see ships you hate in your own patrols.

Alternatively, "priority" column can be changed from checkbox to value (0-5), where 0 - do not use, 5 - max priority, 3 - default option, normal frequency.

Suggestions / For the sake of astronomical justice.
« on: June 20, 2020, 12:10:15 PM »
First of all, yes I do understand this is just a game and everything within it is very simplified and approximated.

Issue A, sizes. Yes, I do understand it is impossible to sustain real scale, and all the distances and sizes are very conditional, but all of the celestial bodies have different sizes, peculiar hint for players to understand which objects are bigger than other. But that system have some defects.

Achaman. Good white dwarf relative size example.
Arcadia. Acceptable white dwarf size example.
Hybrasyl. White dwarfs can not be that big, it's compared to red and orange stars. Same problem with Zagan and randomly generated white dwarfs.

And, yeah, randomly generated brown dwarfs shouldn't be that big either. Real stars of that type are no much bigger than gas giants. But this is minor issue compared to that white dwarfs on steroids.

Issue B. Damn orbital mechanic. No, I will not whine about elliptic orbits, inclinations and Kepler laws. No.

Black hole orbiting brown dwarf. That sequence of words makes the hair on the back of my head stirring.

And it is kind of common to have smaller stars in a center of a binary systems.

Bug Reports & Support (modded) / Anilyze derelict mission bug
« on: May 30, 2020, 11:37:50 AM »
Weird thing just happen.

I noticed, that mission is generated on star system Dis (If I remember correct a name). But I did not accept it, just remembered that Dis system contain a derelict ship "on some distance away". Mission was withdrawn.

Few month later I was flying near that system, so jumped in and quickly loot a ship. Then I think would be nice to know if there some kind of bounties posted near before returning home, so I build a makeshift com relay and found, that "analyze derelict" mission is posted in exactly same system I currently was, so accepted. Again "on some distance away". I was scouting system for a few month with neutrino detector on, but didn't find anything. That makes me suspicious, as system even is not large. So I maximized sensor range via CC - nothing in system. Same thing in a devmode. No objects other than planets and that com relay. I suspect it could be like that:

1. Mission was generated on that derelict. But I did not know it exist, because of no com relay.
2. I scavenged a mission objective derelict. But mission remain. Yet invisible.
3. I build a com relay and accept a mission on derelict that no longer exist.

Is that possible?

I was scared to death, so loaded a last save quite distant in time, to be said. Can not reproduce a bug now. But I am not drunk enough for a hallucinating. Yet.

General Discussion / Am I ready to establish my first colony?
« on: May 24, 2020, 11:22:33 AM »
Current state on year 222:



So, the question is: is that enough, or I need some more preparation?

Suggestions / Onslaught's main caliber line crossing.
« on: May 22, 2020, 07:35:19 AM »
Suggestion is very simple. Replace this:
Into this:


That is semi-random, probably not optimal angles. But seriously, ever Hegs won't build a ship, which main caliber can not be even close targeted into single point.

Suggestions / Neutrino detector shows results on system map.
« on: May 18, 2020, 11:42:11 AM »
Neutrino detector is bad currently. It is pain to use. Worst thing - it sometimes ends up with pre-saving, flying a bit around and loading. So exiting!

But the truth is, that it is a very powerful instrument, as seeing direction means you can determine position by triangulating. Example:

Initial position
False readings
Signal's position

If I, meatbag, able to determine position by analyzing readings, then any computer as powerful as calculator able to do it better, and in real time. Do the space ships have a computers? Probably all, except LP - they use abacus.

Proposition is damn simple: give us approximate positions of all readings in a system, shown on map, player able to navigate better.

Will this make skill too powerful? Probably. But there are always ways to counter:

-Significant cost increase.
-False readings on map.
-Approximal positions can be too large and get smaller over a time, compulsing player for longer (and more expensive) uses.
-CR loss or other fleet debuff.
-Limited range? Not too small, off course. And it is better too see it on map.
-Require a specialized ship in fleet?
-Be illegal in civilized sectors?

Today is really sad day. I lost my fate in paragons after a like 4 years of constant piloting it...

That was a happy story at it's start. New run with some new mods. Small exploration fleet, consist of freighters, tankers, rigs (no guns at any) and 4(!) poorly armed degraded tempests. And that's it. All what I want on start. Suddenly, it appears right from the nebula! The royal gift from RNG God! Derelict Paragon with only one d-mod (structural damage)! Probably, wrecks from some kind of battle near. But who cares from where it is? Grab it! Fast! Snatch it, while no one can see! The treasure! Or I thought so...

That really was not easy to repair, and even harder to arm with weapons, but now it's done. Almost. You see, after installing all the hullmods, weapons and maxing out dissipation, it still 40 OP to spend. Shall I change weapons to more powerful or add capacitors? Nahhh! It is already enough power to crush any upcoming threat, that is not a radiant, battlestation or other Paragon. Just trust me, it does. Do I wish to hunt remnants, stations and high value bounties? No! I wish to explore those stars on outskirts of a sector! There is nothing to fear of...

Damn! THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR! Just like that! Precious present from highest powers kills all the fun of exploring the universe of danger!

Surveying equipment... That what I install on it. Just to justify it's huge month upkeep during a long expedition. It is really better than efficiency overhaul, cos' I survey everything I see. I can explore as long as I want now, because I salvage more supply and fuel, than consume. And random spawned pirates do not attack me. They fear me. I am a monster now.

And monster can not be a monsterfighter...


Suggestions / Fighter bay sizes and/or types.
« on: May 08, 2020, 08:48:17 AM »
That was probably already suggested, but didn't find.

In the SS we have three different types of weapons in a three sizes. That intended limitation creates variety of roles to a different shiphulls, and we probably all agreed it is good©.

Fighter bays, on the other hand are completely the same, only limitation on installing LPC is OP. And that creates monsters, carrying wings, they logically shouldn't, with no weapons at all.

That is completely have sense, that bigger fighters need a bigger bays, and specialized wings are suited for specialized bays. Like bomber bays has to be focused on fast reload, while interceptor bay will most likely focused on replacement. An it is not about adjustments, those things would most probably be built-in-hull. Also, using a bigger bay for "small" LPC should mean increasing in a wing size.

That isn't easy thing to implement and even harder to balance. But it might be a way to get rid of some shame, like fighter spam.

Modding / Lack of soul.
« on: April 24, 2020, 08:37:46 AM »
I have some fun with kitbashing last days. Some are good. Some are not. But this particular hull is weird, it's kind of OK, but it kind of empty at the same time.

It have no soul what ever I do to it. Like insipid porridge without even salt.


I am unable to determine what exactly is wrong. Can anyone help?

Pages: [1] 2