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

General Discussion / Re: Help with Pegasus loadout against Domain drones

« on: August 26, 2024, 06:17:18 PM »

Yeah if you're going pilums you kinda have to go all in.  Past a certain density they reach critical mass and just overwhelm PD as they surround the enemy and close in.  Below that, you're just mildly herding the target away from you and wasting time chasing it.  cyclone reapers?  On a Pegasus?  With the nonexistent convergence of those hardpoints, that's just asking for things to go horribly wrong.  Why not just load up four hurricane MIRVS?  They're guided enough to make it count, cover a wide area on the target and deal HE damage; they're perfect against derelicts.  If you've got them, it's not a bad way to use them.

Actually that's a good point, completely forgot about Hurricane MIRVs. Would recommend! Expanded Missile Racks and MIRVs should chew up plenty of un-shielded and the Guardians would get surrounded pretty easily (or drowned out by MIRVs, it can happen).
I don't think pilums have the critical mass anymore. They used to, when they moved super slowly and you could fire them across the map, but now their range is gimped so they don't fulfill the same role, and they aren't exactly a tough missile to shoot down. I think Pilums are one of the few missiles that could benefit from a missile HP buff, just because their base effect is so low that they need the help lol

2

General Discussion / Re: Help with Pegasus loadout against Domain drones

« on: August 24, 2024, 12:52:23 AM »

Hmm, can't say I'd know for sure without a picture if your fleet (the supporting ships to the Pegasus matter too!) but just on the face of it I'd recommend trying torpedoes and Maneuvering Jets. Reapers are a classic against massive hunks like the Rampart. If you are talking Guardians, then I'd recommend separating the enemy fleet with fast frigates and then sending in your Pegasus and other line ships to gang up on one or two Guardians at a time (rather than facing an enemy deathball).
Good luck!

3

Suggestions / Re: Improve Exploration Missions

« on: August 21, 2024, 10:59:46 PM »

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "less rewarding than all other missions types due to the random nature of mission targets"? I personally find exploration missions to be some of the quickest and easiest cash in the early to mid-game because you can pick and choose the ones you can do according to your fleet capabilities (always lots of options) or just... accept them all and take the rep hit for the ones you can't do. The reputation lost is minimal (hardly significant tbh).

4

Suggestions / Re: Let's add a captial sized combat frieghter!

« on: August 19, 2024, 02:44:14 PM »

Looking at other combat freighters, the general theme is that you get roughly 2/3rds the capacity at 2.33x the deployment cost. Considering the Atlas and Prometheus are 10 DP with 2000 and 3000 of their respective capacity, this thing is should be ~25 DP (though Capital-sized) with 1350 cargo and 2000 fuel.

My thought for combat freighters in general is that they'd be balanced around being a sidegrade to dedicated freighters logistically, and that, with militarized subsystems, they'd be a sidegrade to dedicated combat ships, too. Hashing out its campaign stats, it might be a faster but more expensive to maintain version of an Atlas, aimed at explorers who expect to come home with lots of loot. High sensor profile, high fuel and maintenance cost, lower base cost, rugged construction, 7-8 campaign speed, about as much cargo as the Atlas, maybe some extra fuel and crew capacity. Something that someone doing early to early-midgame exploration would find attractive as a high-risk high-reward flagship.

I'm inclined to agree with Bungee_man here. If we consider a combat freighter to be essentially a jack-of-all-trades ship, then it will need to be better than average at those distinct categories as the power in those categories will be split multiple ways. Like a ship that won't function as well as a dedicated combat ship, but maybe at 85% efficacy, and likewise as a freighter. This difference is enough that min-maxers and super late-game players won't use the ship beyond the novelty, but early and mid-game players may use it because it is a convenient option at the time they are playing.
However, FooF's idea of a ship sounds excellent! I just think 2/3rds efficacy is too low, it could use a bit more oomf and it would essentially be there.

Capital level salvage rig is cool.

+1 if it could be a capital-grade salvage rig

5

Suggestions / Re: Smuggling: Transponder and Patrols

« on: August 19, 2024, 02:21:52 PM »

Black Market is one of the main sources for weaponry. Halving the chances of finding new weapons will make collecting needed weapons is even more boring. Open market is useless as a weapon provider.

That's a significantly deeper cut than halving for market access, given most weapons don't show up on the open market in the first place, yes.

I'm not sure that pushing the player more to take commissions, engage with the contact system for fabricator access, establish heavy industry to build their own weapons, or learn how to quickly stealth dock at the major ports are bad things for gameplay, though.

Actually this does sound like a really great idea. The early and mid-game are some of the best parts of Starsector, the times when you have less than ideal hullmod access, ship access, and weapon access. If the black market was more difficult to access then it would create a more natural point of progression for players:
A player probably boots up the game, goes around doing odd-jobs here and there, and eventually hits a wall where they wonder how to improve their fleet. Now any of those options can serve as clear goals to acquire better weaponry.

6

Suggestions / Re: Allow DEMs to return to the missile rack that fired them to recharge.

« on: August 16, 2024, 09:31:28 AM »

If the missiles come back and only boost RoF I might agree with the change. If they provide more ammo by coming back (ie, the missile is reused) then I disagree because then their use case stays the same (effective against frigates and destroyers and much less efective against larger hulls) just they get better at killing the small ships for longer. The idea is interesting, but to be honest I think a better buff would just be increasing the range of the DEM beam so large-hull PD (with ITU bonuses) doesn't clear them so easily.

Gazer I think can't really compete for direct damage (and with a sabot existing would we really want it to) but if it had an ammo buff and fired for longer (with same total damage, so lower DPS) maybe it could be a better support missile. I could see a Gazer being balanced with a slightly worse refire time and infinite ammo, as a sort of graviton mount for low-tech ships.

EDIT: Alternatively or in addition, also make the Gazer beam's gravity effect on missiles more pronounced so it can act as a sort of PD. +++ If the beam actually targets enemy missiles, like a PD missile (though that might work better as a different weapon entirely).
Maybe the new beam Alex showed off on Twitter will be the buffed Gazer? 

7

General Discussion / Re: Why can't we have more subfactions like the Lion's Guard?

« on: August 13, 2024, 10:35:46 PM »

I think the Gemini is balanced around having good campaign stats and also having some fighting capability like a Mule, so it makes sense that it isn't really an optimal fighting vessel...

Noting the above, a League militarized Gemini might be a good ship to add flavor, suiting their faction's use of midline civilian ships to sure up their fleets. Base Gemini's ability (to make their one bay temporarily act like two) could be swapped out for a second bay and a movement ability to increase survivability. One or both of the ballistic mounts could be changed out for missiles, and the deployment cost could be slightly increased. The result would be something a little more armed than a Heron, just as survivable, and cheaper but less capable of filling all of its slots without compromise. Do people think that'd give it a suitable niche?

I think this would be an interesting addition, seeing a cheap carrier (thinking 11, 12 DP here) would be interesting... but two medium missiles and two fighter bays might be a bit much for that DP price point (both missiles and fighters are especially good en masse so that could be quite a potent ship). Especially if they have a movement ship system that boosts their survivability/allows them to kite larger ships, that would be an awesome combination! Then again, not enough OP to really capitalize on all of that... hmm...

My favorite build uses a hurricain reaper, and some form of mid range weapon. This could be an autocannon, pulse laser, or maybe something like a Ion pulser is you actually want to invest in capacitors. For myself, i usually just use cheap mid-rangers to keep the ship in optimal range to fire it's reapers. I then give it unstable injector and eccm package. Expanded missile racks may be nice, but they don't always last long enough to need them.

Field these guys in trios, with eliminate orders on large targets, preferably with a mid/short range brawling cruiser to give them enough time to fire.

Think of these guys as the Death Korps of Krieg for Starsector. Super cheap, super soft, with punishing assaults of they are properly supported.

I also noticed that a pulse laser/sabot pod setup is good for stalling high tech ships, but I haven't got this to really shine or do any meaningfull damage. Might do better with a phase lance.

Ah, I have definitely tried them with reapers but found that the reapers alone couldn't quite do the trick and the lone medium mount with mediocre flux stats couldn't make up the difference. I am thinking about them again though now... I wonder if Sabot Pods and Ion Pulsers would be a good combo to mix in with the Reaper ships?

8

Suggestions / Re: Large missiles feels lacking in options

« on: August 12, 2024, 05:45:26 PM »

I still find Locusts to be an excellent slot-in for any large missile slots. It is cheap, doesn't need EMR for most fights, deletes fighters, suppresses frigates (unlike Squall), saturates PD, and can shred hull.
I haven't used MIRVs in a while, but their having better tracking seems good, right? Even with the lost damage from less munitions. I consider MIRV versus Hammer/Reaper like Hellbore versus HAG; the MIRV will consistently strip armour (even against slower frigates due to its guidance) and it fires for a while... that's it. It strips armour. If you want to delete hull then the torpedoes are your bet.
I'd love to hear folks' opinions on the new large Pilum... is it useful? Every time I use Pilums they get shot down or seem to just hit shields and do nothing. I'd rather bring Locusts!

I do think a large version of the Proximity Charge Launcher could be interesting, but instead of just "that but bigger" it would be a wide spray of Piranha bombs, like laying a minefield for enemy (and ally lol) ships to worry about. Could be an interesting weapon used by Pirates/Luddic Path perhaps? The idea of laying massive minefields makes me a salivate a little :p

9

General Discussion / Re: Why can't we have more subfactions like the Lion's Guard?

« on: August 12, 2024, 05:26:21 PM »

I would actually love to see a Gemini turned into a fighting vessel. Would it just get better flux stats and remain a Vigilance+? Could it be turned into a skirmisher carrier with, say, maneuvering jets or plasma jets? Or would that be too far from its original identity? Either way, I think a close-range hit-and-run carrier with a hullmod that halves fighter range or something could be an interesting design to explore.
Also would be interested in seeing the Vigilance get some variants/love in general, I still don't find it capturing me (despite its potential on the surface of it) :/
(perhaps an all-Vigilance fleet will sway me... always new things to try hehehe)

10

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 15, 2024, 11:56:15 AM »

Spoiler

Spoiler

You can't increase the range without breaking the games balance. The moment proper High-Tech gets ballistic ranged energy weapons is the moment where all other types of ships get invalidated. I've always known this from playing mods, but I got a hard reminder when I installed Hazard Mining Incorporated and it introduced Remnant weapons that had longer than standard range for a borderline nonexistent OP increase and or flux efficiency decrease.

Can't increase the range at all? The suggestion isn't to maintain a 1000 range beam here, it is to simply put them out of the 500-600 SU range band. Regarding the mod you referenced, you stated it yourself that the special Remnant weapons had a borderline nonexistent OP increase/efficiency decrease, which doesn't really inspire confidence in the balancing ability of that mod. The whole point of this thread is finding the right balance anyway, right?

HMI also introduced me to weapons that frequently pierce shields at any flux level. Given HSA Tachyon Lance and Ion Beam can do that, but are uncommon at low flux, having HSA increase their effects would be hellish, just as it was with that mod.

I didn't suggest EMP arcing at every flux level. I said double the effects. If EMP doesn't arc at low flux, then it still doesn't arc at low flux.

Having multiple beams decreases hit strength, making anti-armor / anti-hull beam weapons worthless. Decreasing the useful builds for S-HSA.

The implication there was that there was some benefit to make the split beams worth it, ie each of three beams does half damage or the beams maintain their effects (like the above 'doubled effects' idea). I remember these ideas coming up in past HSA balance discussions so I didn't feel like retreading all that ground, but the point is that it isn't just to split the beam.

Shield bouncing is best left to a dedicated weapon as it would be agony to balance, and have the AI recognize as a potential threat.
The AI would struggle with beams being half hardflux/softflux. Both on the firing and receiving end.

I agree the AI would be tricky with both of these, was spitballing at that point. Hence why I followed those ideas up with "those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever."

Which returns to the range balancing. I think halved range beyond 400 isn't that crazy a change.
Compare the Graviton to the Arbalest:
9 vs 8 OP (not counting HSA cost or S-mod opportunity cost)
Both 700 range
Equal damage/flux
Higher hit strength for Arbalest
Perfect accuracy and minor shield debuff effect for Graviton

Similar comparisons with the IR Autolance and the Thumper, where the Thumper recovers charges faster but the IR has higher hit strength. Phase Lance doesn't approach ballistic range or efficiency in any world. Ion Beam is still an expensive and inefficient weapon. All the large energy beams would have equal range to Autopulse or Plasma Cannon, so hardly competitive with large ballistics there. The largest imbalance I see would be the tac laser, which would have 700 range against similarly ranged ballistics, but perfect accuracy. Tactical Lasers are also inefficient compared to ballistics and have poor hit strength though...

All of this at the price of OP, which high-tech ships already have less of compared to low-tech ships, or at the cost of an S-mod slot, when there are some really competitive high-tech S-mod bonuses. All of this compared to 700 range ballistic weapons, which are on the lower end of ballistic ranges. The only thing a high-tech ship would have going with these 700 range beams is speed, which, yeah, it helps, but they still need to enter ballistic weapon range to deliver that damage. The only ships that don't have ballistics are energy-only ships, and in that case I agree that they would have an advantage,  but what are the chances that such a perfect matchup occurs? Never mind that high-tech shields are already an almost rock-paper-scissors like hard-counter to regular (non-HSA) beams as-is.

After looking case-by-case (ignoring Dorito weapons as they are special cases anyway) I'm not convinced that 700 range hard-flux beams would be competitive with ballistic weapons at all. They seem like they'd only be decent against slower, energy-only, non-capital enemy ships. That is a pretty specific niche. Frankly, HSA is useless as-is, so if the range change was an S-mod bonus then HSA wouldn't ever see action outside of being S-modded, that's for sure.

[close]

Unless you want to make them massively flux inefficient, no not at all. The bonus range from ballistic weapons is needed to give the slower Low-Tech ships breathing room. It allows them to fire on High-Tech ships first, and drop their shields first when both ships back off to vent. Granting them a good tradeoff for the extreme speed and dissipation difference.
To get the same 700 range on energy weapons, and thereby on HT ships, you would need decrease their efficiency by an extreme margin to cover for this. When I say extreme, I mean extreme, 0.8 efficiency beam weapons would become 1.1-1.2 efficient weapons.

You may not have suggested it, but that's the end effect. HSA Tachyon Lances deal the hardflux they need to arc, which means firing on ships at 0 flux still has a chance to generate an arc. Doubling the odds this happens turns it into a weapon that will reliably shut down destroyers and some lower capacity cruisers.

Pretty much any way you balance split beams is going to have negative consequences. The way I mentioned decreases hit strength making weapons like the HIL, TL, and PL significantly weaker.
Decreasing DPS so that each beam has the same hit strength makes it easier for ships to shield tank shots.

For most of these, see the opening reason. For Phase Lances, you're getting a flux efficient, higher dps, perfect accuracy, and never ending Anti-Matter Blaster for 1 op + HSA, it should be 400 range. Tachyon Lances have a higher sustained DPS than AutoPulse lasers, have higher hit strength, better accuracy, and will arc through shields, for being less flux efficient, lower range, 5 op +HSA, and not having the opening burst. Boosting its range would probably make it an auto pick over AutoPulse Lasers.

[close]

1. I understand the theory, but again, I disagree. As I mentioned, 700 range is the low end for a ballistic weapon as-is. They are also significantly more efficient by virtue of specialized damage types, and frankly speaking, I don't find any of the base-1000-range beams to be good enough with hard flux to compete with their ballistic counterparts. I can hardly see a Tactical Laser or Graviton Beam whittling down an enemy ship before PPT kicks in, in a fleet setting at least. I'd really have to see it to believe it!

2. Good! Shutting down a destroyer with an S-mod boosted Large Energy (already more rare than Large Ballistic and shorter range to boot) should be an achievement. Especially considering how a non-HSA-boosted Tachyon Lance or Autopulse can already perform very well against a destroyer or light cruiser, it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment. I'll chock this one up to another "see it to believe it".

3. Negative consequences aren't always an issue. Some hullmods have negative consequences, but still fulfill niches, like how S-modded Armoured Weapon Mounts can push an already over-fluxed ship into downright comatose territory, or how S-modded Integrated Point Defense AI can be a bad pick with certain small weapons because they are really bad and inefficient anti-fighter/missile weapons. The point is that sometimes the split beams would be good enough to justify the cost. My example of maintain beam effects but you get it with three separate beams means one Graviton would provide the full 10% shield damage bonus, or that dreaded shield arcing you were just trembling at would come into effect three (!) times over. Also can't say that I wouldn't ever make that trade for a High-Intensity Laser; 50% higher DPS for half hit strength would still be fine for cracking most cruiser-grade armour, it just wouldn't be as effective against the toughest armour around (kind of like how the HAG is higher hull DPS but lower hit strength compared to Hellbore).

4. Phase Lances also take up a medium slot? I can't put a Phase Lance on a Scarab or Omen, for example. Should an Arbalest be weighed against a Railgun now? I personally have a simple conversion ratio where 1L = 2M = 4S. It doesn't hold up perfectly, some slot sizes are more efficient than others, but that is my general feeling. So I'd say that a Phase Lance should probably be twice as good as an Antimatter Blaster right out of the gate anyway. Maybe even better, because I consider small Energy slots to be weaker than the 2-to-1 ratio listed above suggests.

5. Regarding Autopulse versus S-modded HSA'd Tachyon, wouldn't a more apt comparison be to an S-modded ExMag'd Autopulse? All the things you listed are comparing a (presumably S-modded, though it doesn't really matter) HSA'd Tachyon Lance to a raw Autopulse; they shouldn't be so evenly matched that HSA still needs a buff to come out ahead!

11

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 14, 2024, 07:19:36 PM »

You can't increase the range without breaking the games balance. The moment proper High-Tech gets ballistic ranged energy weapons is the moment where all other types of ships get invalidated. I've always known this from playing mods, but I got a hard reminder when I installed Hazard Mining Incorporated and it introduced Remnant weapons that had longer than standard range for a borderline nonexistent OP increase and or flux efficiency decrease.

Can't increase the range at all? The suggestion isn't to maintain a 1000 range beam here, it is to simply put them out of the 500-600 SU range band. Regarding the mod you referenced, you stated it yourself that the special Remnant weapons had a borderline nonexistent OP increase/efficiency decrease, which doesn't really inspire confidence in the balancing ability of that mod. The whole point of this thread is finding the right balance anyway, right?

HMI also introduced me to weapons that frequently pierce shields at any flux level. Given HSA Tachyon Lance and Ion Beam can do that, but are uncommon at low flux, having HSA increase their effects would be hellish, just as it was with that mod.

I didn't suggest EMP arcing at every flux level. I said double the effects. If EMP doesn't arc at low flux, then it still doesn't arc at low flux.

Having multiple beams decreases hit strength, making anti-armor / anti-hull beam weapons worthless. Decreasing the useful builds for S-HSA.

The implication there was that there was some benefit to make the split beams worth it, ie each of three beams does half damage or the beams maintain their effects (like the above 'doubled effects' idea). I remember these ideas coming up in past HSA balance discussions so I didn't feel like retreading all that ground, but the point is that it isn't just to split the beam.

Shield bouncing is best left to a dedicated weapon as it would be agony to balance, and have the AI recognize as a potential threat.
The AI would struggle with beams being half hardflux/softflux. Both on the firing and receiving end.

I agree the AI would be tricky with both of these, was spitballing at that point. Hence why I followed those ideas up with "those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever."

Which returns to the range balancing. I think halved range beyond 400 isn't that crazy a change.
Compare the Graviton to the Arbalest:
9 vs 8 OP (not counting HSA cost or S-mod opportunity cost)
Both 700 range
Equal damage/flux
Higher hit strength for Arbalest
Perfect accuracy and minor shield debuff effect for Graviton

Similar comparisons with the IR Autolance and the Thumper, where the Thumper recovers charges faster but the IR has higher hit strength. Phase Lance doesn't approach ballistic range or efficiency in any world. Ion Beam is still an expensive and inefficient weapon. All the large energy beams would have equal range to Autopulse or Plasma Cannon, so hardly competitive with large ballistics there. The largest imbalance I see would be the tac laser, which would have 700 range against similarly ranged ballistics, but perfect accuracy. Tactical Lasers are also inefficient compared to ballistics and have poor hit strength though...

All of this at the price of OP, which high-tech ships already have less of compared to low-tech ships, or at the cost of an S-mod slot, when there are some really competitive high-tech S-mod bonuses. All of this compared to 700 range ballistic weapons, which are on the lower end of ballistic ranges. The only thing a high-tech ship would have going with these 700 range beams is speed, which, yeah, it helps, but they still need to enter ballistic weapon range to deliver that damage. The only ships that don't have ballistics are energy-only ships, and in that case I agree that they would have an advantage,  but what are the chances that such a perfect matchup occurs? Never mind that high-tech shields are already an almost rock-paper-scissors like hard-counter to regular (non-HSA) beams as-is.

After looking case-by-case (ignoring Dorito weapons as they are special cases anyway) I'm not convinced that 700 range hard-flux beams would be competitive with ballistic weapons at all. They seem like they'd only be decent against slower, energy-only, non-capital enemy ships. That is a pretty specific niche. Frankly, HSA is useless as-is, so if the range change was an S-mod bonus then HSA wouldn't ever see action outside of being S-modded, that's for sure.

12

Suggestions / Re: Decrease High Scatter Amplifier OP cost down to 3/5/7/10

« on: April 13, 2024, 07:14:38 PM »

Beam DPS would be flux efficient but OP inefficient, while energy bolt DPS would be flux inefficient but OP efficient.
This would have a valuable use case for ships that have a good amount of OP, but not enough venting. So high-tech frigates like the Wolf, Midline ships, and many Remnant ships.

I don't agree, beam weapons are already really cheap and efficient flux-wise and often the ships that can field them have a flux profile made to account for generally inefficient bolt weapons. Making them (and only them) slightly cheaper isn't really going to make the difference worth the extra OP or a different S-mod bonus.

I'm fine if they compete with regular bolt weapons because one is already paying that tax to enable them to do so (just like with S-Modded Expanded Mags), but if they were to have an alternative niche, I'd like it to really be interesting and not just a minor stat change.

-Folk have mentioned split beams, that would be a cool S-mod bonus.
-Or if it bounced off of enemy shields and could hit other enemies.
-Or if it doubled special beam effects, like Graviton shield damage buff is doubled and/or Ion Beam/Tach Lance do double EMP arcing through shields.
-Or the S-mod bonus gives the beams back their original range, but the hard-flux damage only applies within the HSA range ie your Graviton does soft flux at 1000 SU until the enemy gets within 600 SU upon which it does hard flux as per HSA usual.

All of those are pretty tough to put into action, tricky to balance, and are inconsistent with peer S-mod effects though, so ultimately tweaking the range debuff is frankly the easiest lever.

What if the S-mod bonus reduced the range malus? Like modifying the base range from 200 to 400? Or reducing the "past base range" modifier from 50% to 40%?

Hmm, makes me consider: how about changing nothing about HSA except simply making it compatible with Advanced Optics (applied later)? Then you can choose not to swallow the poison pill, but at a further OP cost.

Regarding S-modded Expanded Mags, I agree with FooF. I never considered the Thumper to be worth it past early game, but S-EM brought it into the light and they are one of my favourite weapons now. Likewise with the Paladin or Burst PD Lasers, both weapons I hardly ever used that can now be enabled by S-EM in a way that more OP can't do.
What I will say about S-EM however, is that it somewhat shares an issue with the old Safety Overrides S-mod in that it can really limit build diversity. By building it in you kind of always want a couple charge-based weapons in your fit from then on (less universally applicable than, say, ITU or Reinforced Bulkheads). Makes me wish for an S-mod removal service :|

13

Blog Posts / Re: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More

« on: April 10, 2024, 11:22:24 AM »

The sheer amount of QoL and readability this update is going to bring will be staggering! I'm excited for the new, improved, polished Starsector!

So here's another thing I'd want to have automatically marked on the map: any time there's a timed-out mission to scan a research station or mining station. (Why timed-out? Because there's no need for a separate marker if the mission is still active, and definitely no need for a separate marker if the mission gets accepted. But if it's timed out, I do want to know "There is definitely a research station in star system X".)

It would definitely help save a player from the tedium of checking their 'new' tab (if that still exists after this update) every five seconds for a 'scan research station' mission. Though, with the new notes system I could see forgoing it, as a player might just want to manually mark down the most interesting salvage themselves anyway (without clogging an exploration log with basic probes or something like that). It looks good either way.

EDIT: Alex beat me to it lol

14

Mods / Re: [0.96a] Officer Extension (0.5)

« on: February 19, 2024, 06:16:21 PM »

An issue with Officer Extension as of 0.97a - if you suspend officers, they still count towards the overall XP value of your fleet. If you permanently dismiss them, they no longer count.

If you are carrying around a lot of suspended officers, you are crippling your XP gain.

How did you update the version to work with 0.97a?

EDIT: Figured it out, just changing the game version in mod_info.json did it

15

Suggestions / Re: Thoughts about 0.96 weapons and the upcoming 0.97 update

« on: January 31, 2024, 10:51:42 PM »

I will say that the talk of PvP starsector is interesting. I remember a few people in the English community built some proof-of-concept mods for having two people fly ships at the same time, but I don't remember it going farther than that. Did the Chinese community figure out a way to make real-time PvP viable?

I dunno if they made a synchronized multiplayer mod but there are definitely "PvP" Starsector tournaments where different players make fleets according to certain rules/restraints and then the fleets are pitted against each other or a common opponent. Some regulars in this very forum have served as announcers in these tournaments (Thaago comes to mind).
I've watched a couple, but most of the tournaments allow mod ships/weapons so I don't really know what's going on in them, build-wise.