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

Blog Posts / Re: Uniquifying the Factions, Part 2

« on: May 08, 2022, 10:15:06 AM »

My suggestion for the Lion's Guard: Keep the base hulls as they are in the blog post. Then give them a high chance of having one-to-three s-mods, and allow those s-mods to stick around when the player captures them.

Hmm - interesting idea; I'll keep it in mind. I don't think it's really necessary or quite fits here, but I get what you're saying.

something not-quite the above, but along these lines would be great:
- a random s mod that may or may not be useful to you but comes with an increased severity version of special modifications
- or the penalty of 'special modifications' only comes into play (and scales upwards) when you put your own hull mods on the ships ["If my elite warships needed recovery shuttles they would have been BUILT with recovery shuttles."]
- or the effect of special modifications is positive(ish) but causes the cost of all other hull mods to increase, because it's incompatible with any flexible doctrine

2

General Discussion / Re: Sindrian Diktat Changes

« on: May 07, 2022, 12:48:16 PM »

I think the narrative justification is... passable. It can be understood why these ships have detriments (if you think pretty hard about it, not sure how much in-game evidence will explain further)

The problem I have is the 'feels-bad' factor of the cool designs being strictly worse - it just makes them hard to use. Not sure exactly on the interactions with D-mod skills, but this is something that to me feels like it shouldn't be counted as a typical D-mod. Those are generally damage/non functioning subsystems that will never be optimal, so you only have to worry about them being 'good enough'

Luddic Path ships are usually a bad idea due to their specific 'customizations' - but they can serve specific purposes and fit into a small niche with some creative builds and a bit of work. Some are better than others of course.

Comparatively it would eliminate some 'feels-bad' for the hot new LG skins if they were broadly a downgrade, but with a narrow upside that could possibly be exploited if circumstances are just right and some creative outfitting is used.

3

Suggestions / Re: Operating time limit halves battle gameplay experience

« on: June 13, 2017, 04:34:25 PM »

Being unable to retreat groups of ships (as far as I can tell) is a little annoying. Retreats really suck up the CP, I'd like to be able to select my 3 frigates and give them a group retreat order, rather than individually calling each ship captain and telling them to take a break before I can bring on my fresh replacements.

4

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.8.1a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: May 24, 2017, 01:38:25 PM »

• Fixed issue in refit screen where mounts on restored hulls would show "empty" hovertext after being fitted

Aha! Does this mean that using variants will stop stripping built-in weapon systems as well?

Looking good for the 0.8.1 !

5

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.8a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: April 22, 2017, 10:07:47 AM »

every "in the heart of [xxxx]" mission ive had so far i found the target in the sun's corona



the solar shielding has value now me thinks ......

try inside the event horizon of a black hole, i agree the dangerous terrain missions add some depth for the terrain and solar shielding as well 

6

General Discussion / Re: Fighter Rework and Missiles.

« on: October 09, 2016, 09:52:42 AM »

Has the idea of regeneration being limited to a single missile been considered? Once the racks are empty they're useless, so might as well load up another warhead.

If missiles can regenerate to 1 when completely depleted it still allows some advantage for conserving ammo, but prevents the ability to kite out all of the MIRVs from an astral for example, since it will eventually be able to fire another one off once it runs out.

For what it's worth I think missiles (some of them) have decent uses as they are, not perfect but fine to use in support of other weapons (isn't that the general idea?). Perhaps a way to give your fleet officers individual orders about how trigger-happy they are with ammo based weapons (like the old Strike Weapons Free fleet order)

7

General Discussion / Re: Impressions of the game after a three year absence.

« on: September 16, 2016, 03:36:13 PM »

I second the decision point on reinforcing enemies as well. Would it be possible to have a multi-stage encounter or perhaps a countdown to reinforcements so if you smash your original opponents fast enough you can scram before their big friends show up?

Honestly ship and weapon availability has never sat right with me since the inception of the campaign. Hulls and weapon types are common enough to encourage boring munchkin optimisation strategies, but not so common that any given ship can be acquired with a bit of dedication. The space-economy is driven by supplies and fuel, I'd like to see a shift to have it more driven by hulls and weapons, with supplies plentiful and fuel relatively cheap. Acquiring much-needed hardware from salvage so you can finish arming your rag-tag band sounds much more exciting to me than doing the space equivalent of fighting the fridge for your lunch of supplies and tasty space-gasoline

8

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Ships become cubes on taking damage

« on: September 12, 2016, 04:21:46 AM »

I encountered a similar problem, here's the thread you might find something in Alex's responses there

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=10761

For me the problem fixed with a rollback and reinstall of my graphics driver

9

General Discussion / Re: 0.7.2 feedback

« on: March 12, 2016, 04:37:09 AM »

If the Afflictor was to be nerfed, I think the appropriate scale of the nerf would be something like not being able to fire for the duration of the disruption. This lets it support and gain advantage with its system shutting down shields, but prevents it alpha-ing massive warships into dust in a small window where they have no defence at all.

I've found phase ships to be very powerful, but not outrageous generally speaking. What phase ships do at the moment is greatly discourage small fleet play, in particular solo flagship play. You have to really have your *** together to handle any fleet with a phase ship on your own. With a few frigates or destroyers dedicated to escorting your important ships you shouldn't have serious trouble with any phase vessel and can generally focus down the enemy bruisers before cleaning up their phase ships.

The ion pulser can be a monstrous weapon in certain scenarios I really like the situational usefulness of the weapon, generally poor on a flagship but extremely potent on a support ship that can get in range and behind shields. A Harbinger with 3 pulsers and expanded magazines can and will disable any ship without 360 shields and good shield efficiency, the entropy amplifier even makes the pulsers do damage, 90 concentrated hits while amped will do real damage in addition to the EMP.

HIL and grav Sunder was my bread and butter in the midgame pirate bounty section of the campaign, the new high energy focus is very good in combination, overwhelms weak emitters easily and once shields go down the hurt really gets going 500dps HE is no joke.

10

Bug Reports & Support / Re: [0.7.2aRC3] *Massive* rep drop after completing 1 marginally profitable delivery

« on: March 12, 2016, 03:52:52 AM »

I've seen this as well, delivering a large quantity of Organs to a TriTach market really hurt my hegemony peace plans.

Having said that, I'm not sure this is a bug per se. The rep loss is probably related to the volume of goods/the value of the goods shifted so a massive transfer for hundreds of thousands of credits would be a large drop. Perhaps it just seems alarmingly extreme to drop from "Friendly" to "Hostile" in a single market transaction.

Maybe limit the change to one or two drops in attitude level ie Cooperative to Friendly or Suspicious to Inhospitable.

11

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Damage texture bug

« on: March 02, 2016, 01:27:18 PM »

Aha! Drivers updated (to NVIDIA GeForce 341.92), all jre and settings.json reverted to the download default. Everything working as intended   

Thanks for help

12

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Damage texture bug

« on: March 02, 2016, 12:43:53 PM »

I'm using a GeForce 330M. I'll check on my drivers and get back to this.

Changing the jre out for the old 0.7.1 version produced the same bug so that's not it.

13

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Damage texture bug

« on: March 02, 2016, 10:56:10 AM »

Yeah maybe I should have specified some system stuff. I'm running Windows 7.

Line now reading:-

"legacyLauncher":true,

just relaunched the game, still seems to be happening.

14

Bug Reports & Support / Damage texture bug

« on: March 02, 2016, 10:18:27 AM »

I've just tried to install 0.7.2 RC2 and as soon as combat started I noticed that the ship damage textures don't seem to be confined to ship bounds. After any kind of damage, ships just start turning into "damage rectangles" completely covered in the damaged texture overlay.

This is a really obvious graphical bug, impossible to miss if it happens. I've tried uninstalling, reinstalling, re-downloading the installer etc etc multiple times.

Interestingly I also went back and reinstalled 0.7.1 and the problem disappears, seems to only be the most recent build?

15

Bug Reports & Support / Insane flux from beams

« on: February 10, 2015, 04:18:20 PM »

There seems to be a bug with High Energy Focus and beam weapons.

Equip any HEF capable ship with some tactical lasers or burst PD.

Fire the beams and all seems normal, but activate the HEF and beam flux buildup goes bananas. Effect persists after system deactivates.