Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
(Okay, keeping in mind that I respect general griping about waiting and the need to do it. But I think there's also an interesting question hidden in here.)I don't think its quite the same as the paradox model as most of their content is paid for DLC, though i could see a content expansion like that years after launch maybe additional story or rebuilding the sector idk. I would assume the more accurate model would be the No mans sky one minus the botched launch because of Gigahype and the millions in backing.
Imagine a world where Starsector was declared 1.0 a few years ago and the updates came out as DLCs; the "Paradox-style" release, if you like. I ask earnestly, is that a preferable product model?
I suppose another alternative is to declare 1.0 with a possibly rushed 'technically hit all the feature bullet-points', then update post-launch. I struggle to remember a game where this worked out well rather than fizzled, though maybe Brigador kinda did it and managed to turn a rough start around with a viral social media post? I don't think they even rushed their release though, and it is also a game working in a far less maximalist design space, eg. standalone arcade-style maps.
... Are there any examples of this? No Man's Sky? (But that was a publisher-backed project with millions in dev funding, wasn't it? Too big. Different beast.)
Another option: I'm loathe to compare Starsector to Dwarf Fortress because I don't think we think about Starsector the way Tarn/the Adams bros think about DF, but maybe the way the game updates relate to players feels similar? Would DF benefit from declaring a 1.0? Possibly their Steam release and UI update is a stealth-1.0, in the sense that that game state is declared 'provisionally definitive'. (Do people who play it agree? I have no idea, I haven't played DF in 15 years or so.)
I like the idea, although it might be more of a 'hard mode' type of thing.I see what you mean, i think the lowered cr would be a pretty easy way to go but i dont think implementing temp d-mods would be too hard. As theres already are a fairly decent amount of similar debuffs in the game already.
Just a note, having CR below 50% actually inflicts some de-buffs on ship stats already (also very low CR causes malfunctions and CR > 70% actually buffs ship stats). The wiki says it affects damage taken/dealt and maneuverability, but I thought it affected stats like dissipation and capacity as well. I think reducing max CR after combats without visiting a station would already have the effect of 'temporary d-mods' if the reduction was significant enough anyway. It might also be much easier to implement that way since the mechanics are already there.
I like this too and I agree that max CR reductions are the simple way to simulate this. Capping max hull/armor/flux cap would be more visually cool though.I wasnt thinking of anything too drastic as you are right its a fine line between interesting mechanic and manotonous chore. Something like 5-10% reductions here or there wouldnt be too bad for temp debuffs maybe have them increase based on repeated abuse or crew fatigue from being deployed for a long time with no leave or anything and it being as simple as spend a day or 2 in orbit around any signifcant population center with a spaceport and have it stack a few times like every month or 2 away from a station get a crew debuff of like 5% effectiveness up to maybe 3-5 stacks so if you go for 3-5 months without hitting a station which is fairly unlikely in most situations anyways you end up with a total reduction of cr by 15-25% which could be substantial. But also from a long ended escapade. Maybe have these effects mitigates by having nicer civilian ships like the starliner in your fleet to satisfy crew needs and reduce it by percentages bases on hull size with diminishing returns on quantity of ships. Thise numbers could be tweaked too but i think that could also help insentivise use of troop transports and other civilian ships. Things like damage from asteroids and hyperspace storms from reckless navigation could be heavier but isolsted to single ships, the concept of hitting a massive ball of rock and iron at those tremendous velocities could make me think of hull and frame compomisation that would require substantial facilites to repair in deep space something like 10-20% hull or 5-10% armor, maybe destroying a couple weapons outright leaving your ship with missing ordnance, same thing could apply with storms but toflux shields or engines, also maybe still weapons too. And have those effects be more likely or more drastic on unshilded ships or ships lacking certain hull mods. Heavy armor, reinforced hull, hardened shields, flux resistant conduits. Have a flux cap set to storm damage to see if it damages the power core or shields generator(that ones a bit more out there but i could see it being interesting) and have those occurences repaired by service gantries at a slow ( few days per debuff ) and increase number removed at a time by number of gantries. I personally also wouldnt mind repairs at a station taking some time. Maybe even 1-2 days which would also benefit the crew fatigue and give a reason to hang around planets for more than 3 in game seconds. I just think that with how long custom production takes that repairing ships though not nearly as long should still take some amount of time rather than the current instantaneous we have now. Having abroad repair times take linger than they do now would be better too but maybe thats just me. Im still in love with what theyve done so far. I hope it would just help flush out the game a bit and help round out need for stations and non combat ships.
One thing to consider however is that this should probably be designed as a "heavy on flavor and light on gameplay consequence" kind of change. Otherwise, it runs the risk of becoming an unintended and very tedious limitation to exploring outside the core. I like the idea of the salvage gantry removing or reducing the penalty though. If that vessel were ensured to be accessible fairly early on, for instance, then I could see this suggestion as more playing into the "build a fleet for exploration" kind of playstyle that requires more thoughtful choices on what ships to bring, etc.
I'm sure there are some who would resent the need of yet another ship cap slot being "mandatorily" not a combat ship though. My personal opinion as far as that is concerned is that such things are necessary both to make the civilian/utility ships useful/desirable in general. I don't necessarily think a player should be able to get away with a mostly combat ship fleet unless they are near a resupply point. It is another way to create unique challenges for the player based upon factors other than just how big or strong the enemy NPC fleet is. Less combat ships being a requirement to get to the location is interesting rather than frustrating - at least to me.
