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: worst enemy is economy in this game

« on: March 21, 2025, 06:43:19 PM »

Some good tips in this thread, I'll throw in a couple of my own:
In the SUPER early-game, try and save to acquire a dram (orange, fuel frigate) and fill it with fuel. Usually you can get a dram for ~11k credits off the black market and fill it for another ~20k (?).

Then go to the map tab and make sure you turn on the 'Fuel Range' option in the bottom left. This will always tell you how far you can fly (in a straight line) and back before running out of fuel. The inner circle is getting there and back, the outer circle is just getting there.

For pure civilian ships (like drams, buffalo, salvage rigs, etc, NOT ships like Mules, Cerberus, ) don't bother with weapons. You want logistics hullmods that make the ship's campaign stats better and then hullmods that make the ship faster for fleeing in combat, in that order.
An example of the dram I mentioned above that I usually build is:
- Auxiliary Fuel Tanks - Militarized Subsystems - Safety Overrides (only allowed by MilSub) - Unstable Injector
This ensures the dram carries a LOT of fuel, doesn't have a nasty sensor profile, and might even be able to escape when fleeing.

You can also build in the Auxiliary Fuel Tanks on the dram early to get a bunch more fuel capacity and get a bunch of bonus XP to level up faster once you have a Story Point

2

Suggestions / Re: We could use some more Carrier/Fighter specific hullmods.

« on: March 17, 2025, 06:51:04 PM »

Devastator is actually a cracked weapon, but you have to build for it. It is definitely combat viable and also quite good anti-fighter. Its anti-missile is a little lacking because it might be on cooldown when the missile comes (and due to the flux cost of firing it) but overall it is a solid weapon.

3

General Discussion / Re: Near impossible challenge

« on: March 15, 2025, 01:24:56 AM »

Love it! That felt satisfying to watch

4

Suggestions / Re: New Ship System Idea, Reverse Thrusters (working name)

« on: March 01, 2025, 10:58:03 AM »

@Princess of Evil
I dunno if I'd call it the worst, assuming you are including forward-only ship systems. It is incredibly safe for AI to use, and it comes on some slower ships (Eagle, Conquest) that allows them to punch down without getting surrounded. I'd say it is pretty well balanced!

5

Blog Posts / Re: Anubis-class Cruiser

« on: March 01, 2025, 10:54:18 AM »

I am also a Dark Souls player. I still disagree entirely.

6

Suggestions / Re: New Ship System Idea, Reverse Thrusters (working name)

« on: February 28, 2025, 09:01:51 PM »

That sounds a lot like Maneuvering Jets! "1-1.25 times zero-flux top speed" isn't actually that fast compared to the speed that Burn Drive or Plasma Burn get you, but I see the idea you are proposing.

7

Blog Posts / Re: Anubis-class Cruiser

« on: February 28, 2025, 01:47:37 PM »

That is one method of making art, yes. I disagree entirely that it is the only way though, and for games that want some semblance of balance, I think you'll need to come to terms with that.

8

Suggestions / Re: Change Industrial Planning to a carrier skill and add it to Officer skill pool

« on: February 28, 2025, 10:20:50 AM »

@happycrow As Megas said, pretty much replace Industrial Planning with the newer better skill. Industry becomes better, hurray!

Although if IP is the only skill replaced, then the replacement skill has to be generalist and not specialist that affects only a small group of ships or else those who do not use those ships are no better off than before.  Two skills need to be replaced to make room for a specialist skill like a carrier skill.

I see what you are saying, but Polarized Armour is pretty specialized other than its elite effect (which does nothing for the AI) and Ordinance Expertise is already the generalist. My thinking about adding a personal ship skill for fighters was that it buffs fighters (like the fighter skills already present) without being quite so easily spammable. You wouldn't have to take the skill if you didn't pilot a ship with fighters, just like you don't take Ballistic Mastery if you don't pilot a ship with ballistics.
If you want to buff Industry's effects in combat in general rather than specifically buff fighters then I can sympathize with the thought, but it isn't very relevant to OP's topic unless you have a suggestion for how Industry would change to buff fighters.

9

Blog Posts / Re: Anubis-class Cruiser

« on: February 28, 2025, 10:02:12 AM »

Isn't it 18 DP?
I think you are overreacting. Every game's design ultimately runs it "into a corner", if you keep on with that design for long enough. That is what design is, a purposeful set of limitations on the unlimited potential of a thing, to refine it into the well-defined and specific item you want it to be. That is why a lot of live-service games stretch further and further with new weapons, characters, settings, mechanics, to the point of alienating people who enjoyed the game near the beginning: they hit the walls of their design and start testing its limits or outright ignoring those limits. (And usually newer players are perfectly fine with that.)
Starsector isn't live-service game, so we can expect that once the limits of design have been met the game's development will conclude. So if the developers want to push to the limits of that design, I'm okay with that because I don't expect them to push beyond it in an effort to seek forever growth.

10

Suggestions / Re: Change Industrial Planning to a carrier skill and add it to Officer skill pool

« on: February 28, 2025, 09:45:47 AM »

@happycrow As Megas said, pretty much replace Industrial Planning with the newer better skill. Industry becomes better, hurray!

11

Suggestions / Re: Feedback as a new player

« on: February 27, 2025, 03:04:39 PM »

Regarding story points: I actually sympathize very heavily with OP regarding not having them in reserve. Although technically you get that bonus XP back thereby rendering the story point "free", in practice by level four or five you will have more bonus XP than you will catch up to by cycle 212; essentially ultra-lategame (at least it is for me, but perhaps I am slow). Just mentoring officers and s-modding the rare hullmod will leave the player with millions upon millions of bonus XP that they have to churn through to get those points back; and that isn't even accounting for using them on escaping massive fleets catching you out in nowhere, or using SP in quests, or spending them to get pather base info, or improving a trading contract, ororor. A new player, not knowing how to avoid half these situations and having no clue as to the value of the other half (or lack thereof with regards to finding a pather base), will find themselves perpetually story-point starved unless they really spent a couple in-game years grinding out major faction bounties/ordos. The unfinished endgame is not exactly riveting.

But that is just how I use my SP. I know lots of other folk use them in their own ways, like Megas using them on colonies.

12

General Discussion / Re: Are carriers weak or not and why?

« on: February 27, 2025, 02:52:05 PM »

@Phenrir Ah, you're right that I was mostly considering Astral and Drover. Heron is in fact pretty on average cost-wise. Worth noting in that case however that the Eradicator (P) and Grendel are also cheaper than it. I think the Eradicator and Falcon in particular are important cases here because they can boast long range and good speed, both are generally excellent at punching down (which is the role the Heron is playing in this case). Their long range and decent defenses also mean they can stay out of the way of a firing ship and are not a complete liability if caught out. They can actually benefit from most, if not all officer skills. And with the Falcon, you can even slap Converted Hangar on there and still get a fighter bay anyway!

Also worth noting that it is directly competing DP-wise with the likes of Eagle, Apogee, Fury, and Gryphon. The second-to-lattermost being another excellent punch-down style ship and the lattermost of course being the quintessential "fire over allies, from long range, at any target, and still do good damage" ship. Though obviously that is an outlier

I would also say that carriers do actually have that problem with losing a lot of value, because once the enemies on the flanks have been peeled off, (generally) all that is left is the enemy blob, and the enemy blob has overlapping PD grids that absolutely delete fighters on the approach. This alone lowers their effectiveness massively (fighters are just minor distractions) but the replacement rate goes down as well, which can be an issue.

However, take all of this with a pinch of salt. I have seen fighters used effectively. BigBrainEnergy put out a "midline cruiser doctrine" type fleet showcase and it had effective fighters, so I am not saying they are totally useless (I'd rather them than Hounds or Kites!). I have also not done a lot of personal playtesting with fighters, and I intend to do so on an upcoming playthrough. So really most of this is based off of general gameplay observations ("vibes"), which as Vanshilar will note can be biased or misleading! (just ask him about SO fleets :p)

13

General Discussion / Re: Are carriers weak or not and why?

« on: February 27, 2025, 09:04:31 AM »

I think swatting pesky frigates and phase ships is useful; I just don't think that can't be done with half the DP invested in a dedicated frigate or two to get the job done. Carriers are expensive DP-wise compared to ships of their class, but this role is essentially "mopping up the edges of your formation" and that can be done pretty well with an extra three or four frigates (or hell, a cruiser with some actual turn speed).
I am in agreement with FooF and Void though, the power in fighters comes from their off-paper utility. I am just not convinced that utility can't be realized easier/better by other ships of equal or lesser value (both dp-wise and also skill point wise).
I am specifically referring to dedicated carriers here really, since the battlecarriers have decent enough stats that the fighters don't entirely hinder their performance. But the fighters used on a battlecarrier are usually a small subset of all the fighters available, ie support fighters like Xyphos or Sarissa or DTA-chained bombers. Also, most officer skills actually see some use on a battlecarrier, as opposed to a dedicated carrier where any old officer with one skill can give the +50% buff to carrier skills. Maybe the skill could scale an extra +10% per officer level? But then battlecarriers still come out firmly on top :/. If nothing about fighters changed, I would like to see some buffs to dedicated carriers so they could perform as battlecarriers, even if they only performed equal to a ship one class lower without their fighters. I.E., a Heron with zero fighters could function at destroyer level, a Condor without fighters could beat a frigate, etc. If fighters are going to be kinda eh, let them be icing on an officered ship's cake, and not squander all that cake for some crumbs on a plate.

14

Suggestions / Re: Change Industrial Planning to a carrier skill and add it to Officer skill pool

« on: February 25, 2025, 02:42:12 PM »

I do see the potential for things to get out of hand. On the other hand, I'd rather fighters be a bit overpowered than underpowered, and this is a personal combat skill so it wouldn't be quite as easy as ye olde fighter spam where any unofficered Drover would do the trick. I do think there is room for reducing fighter engagement range without it dropping to DTA (0) levels, but I think that is hullmod territory.
Honestly speaking, I think the old problems with fighter spam are not unlike today's problems with missile spam, in that a couple outliers (Drover + Spark, Gryphon + Squall Harpoon) are dragging the category down a bit. But I could see it either way; since updates come so far apart, a big balance issue would be around for a long time, so caution is warranted (just not excessive caution to detriment of gameplay).
I wonder if it would be so crazy for fighters to get a "fighter Support Doctrine" personal combat skill, where they get Helmsmanship, Damage Control, Combat Endurance, and Ordinance Expertise? No +damage but lots of little boosts that would add up to better survivability. Or give them Target Analysis, where that damage boost only applies to ships that already have great PD coverage (capitals and cruisers).

15

Suggestions / Re: Change Industrial Planning to a carrier skill and add it to Officer skill pool

« on: February 25, 2025, 02:14:30 PM »

@mr. domain
I just think it is too complicated and specific. A simple catch-all fighter skill like "does 20% more damage" is so much simpler for a player to intuit its effects AND is so much more generally applicable to fighters. When I look at possible skills I try and trend towards the simplicity of vanilla skills. Most vanilla skills are really quite simple and straight-forward, it is just when they get moxed in with actual ship builds and s-mods and fleet composition that you start to see those fine differences and nuances. Let hullmods add crazy text boxes like Ballistic Rangefinder or Missile Autoloader :p