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: Hostile Activity (09/01/22)

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.

Messages - Morgan Rue

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
General Discussion / Re: Mining blaster vs heavy blaster which one to use?
« on: November 08, 2021, 01:43:43 PM »
Mining Blasters are effective as secondary burst or armor breaker weapons. You generally shouldn't use them as primary weapons compared to Heavy Blasters, but they work well as complementary weapons on Cruisers and similar.

If you can get them, Antimatter Blasters are likely better than Mining Blasters for this purpose, though they have slightly shorter range, have lower output and are generally less flexible in exchange for twice the burst damage.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: November 05, 2021, 06:56:05 PM »
I will note that previously, you could run a Heavy Mauler and use it as sustained pressure to overwhelm shields over a longer period of time. When combined with an HVD, due to it's reasonable refire rate, it can force shields to be up at 1000 SU, and apply a fair amount of pressure to ships at long range.

Sustained HE weapons are generally in a weird niche, yes, but they do work. Leaning more heavily into HE weapons rather than Kinetic weapons shortens your TTK once you do overwhelm shields.

This is visible in both the Hephaestus Assault Gun and the Heavy Mauler. I'm generally a fan of the Heavy Mauler being high-ish sustained output, premium long range HE.
The Heavy Mortar being HE burst would also be reasonable and make an amount of sense. It's currently... not used all that much?

The Gemini was changed to have Civilian-Grade Hull, but did not have a reduction to it's crew requirement. This means a militarized Gemini takes about twice as much crew to man as a normal combat destroyer. I guess it has a flight deck, so it having a higher than normal crew requirement is reasonable, but it seems like it requires too much crew. It gets very close to it's maximum crew capacity in skeleton crew with Mil Subsystems.

Maybe tac lasers just aren't good PD no matter how much you try and make them and people should just accept that instead of trying to make them into PD.
Allow me to introduce you to the Tactical Scarab, slaughterer of Fighters and Missiles alike.

Advanced Turret Gyros is required though, and Advanced Optics is probably a bad idea.

Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 05, 2021, 06:42:29 PM »
CanaldoVoid, I think your doctrine is just really unusual and not used by most players. You kite hard with stacked beam weapons yes? This sort of style is going to be really effective against Low Tech ships, which are lacking in dissipation and will not be able to catch faster ships with longer range. This is probably part of why you feel the way you do. It's a cool doctrine though, and it's neat to see all the ways people play the game.

I usually fit a lot of LRPD Lasers or PD Lasers on my ships, as they are fairly flux efficient and are usually good to shoot at enemies in addition to shooting down fighters and missiles. LRPD Lasers can also be used to provide point defense for allied ships as well, which is quite helpful.

I usually won't fit stuff like Single or Dual Autocannons on ships, but this is more because their ranges do not match up with the larger weapon ranges rather than the weapons themselves being ineffective. I generally like Light Machine Guns a lot though, and personally prefer them to Vulcans because of their longer reach and ability to pressure shields extremely well at close ranges. I usually don't use much ballistic PD outside of Flak Cannons though. Light Mortars are notably extremely efficient HE weapons and can be very effective on a number of ships. Fitting a Hammerhead with two Light Mortars and two medium kinetic weapons can be quite effective.

I've not killed any real late game enemies recently, at least not with vanilla stuff, but there was that time I faced down a few small groups of Remnants with just Hounds and won without any losses. Lots of hull and armor damage though.

Suggestions / Re: Possible buff to Low Tech Ships idea
« on: June 04, 2021, 09:29:28 PM »
Am just here to state that you are probably not putting Integrated Targeting Unit or Dedicated Targeting Core on your Cruisers and Capitals, CanaldoVoid. One of these range boost hullmods is essential for larger ships to function properly. This is perhaps why you feel outranged and outspeeded?

either that or your entire game consists of only Paragons somehow?

Would you mind posting some screenshots of the ship fits you use? The base game will take a screenshot when you press printscreen and put it in the Fractal Softworks\Starsector\screenshots folder

Mods / Re: [0.95a] Neutrino Detector Mk.II, a false positive remover
« on: April 20, 2021, 05:47:20 PM »
I gotta say, this doesn't feel very cheat-y at all. the false neutrino spikes are a massive time-waster and a bother, there's nothing like counterplay or anything, you either have to follow them all and waste time or you potentially miss out on finding things. which, for an ability that should supposedly help not miss out on stuff... the fake spikes really make it feel mostly pointless

thank you very much for making this mod, it's a godsend and I'll definitely be using it in all my future playthroughs
You can tell the difference between a 'real' spike and a 'fake' spike by traveling perpendicular to the spike and seeing if it moves. There's probably a few other ways to tell, and there's also a bunch of 'normal spots' for stuff to be, but I'm not going to list all that here.

But yea, the fake spikes make the ability feel... not really worth using? It takes time, requires volatiles and is generally not as effective as it perhaps should be?

Bug Reports & Support / At The Gates Finale Issue
« on: April 01, 2021, 12:03:43 PM »
After Kanta's, instead of going through the Gate, I just... transverse jumped out and went to Galatia normally. But apparently, I still went through the Gates according to the story.

I was looking to purchase a cruiser from my Tritachyon contact on Culaan. First it was a Fury, then it became an Eagle, now it's an Apogee.

The +10% Flux Dissipation does not appear to apply if Militarized Subsystems is builtin. It does apply if it is not builtin.

This also appears to be the case with Hardened Subsystems.

Nevermind, the bonus only applies to Base Dissipation.

you know you can kill an Onslaught with a Hound in vanilla correct?

1v1 is not a good balancing thing, especially when the player can abuse certain weaknesses.

Suggestions / AI is not great at fire control with it's weapons groups
« on: April 27, 2020, 10:18:38 PM »
It would be cool if the AI turned off the least flux efficient weapons against shields first instead of turning off the highest cost weapon group when at high flux. Currently, the AI turns of it's primary standoff armament when losing on flux quite often, as a lot of the time it's Kinetic weapons will be the most flux expensive weapon group.

This would also allow the AI to better pilot lodouts which use non-missile secondary weapons, like Mining Blasters.

Suggestions / Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« on: January 27, 2020, 09:13:26 PM »
I like the idea, it makes sense.
Mora and Legion might need a compensation for it (un-nerf Damper field for Mora?).
Odyssey doesn't armor tank anything but superficial kinetics anyway. Also, if damage needs to actually hit the hangar (which is imo good way to go about it), on Odyssey it's located on safe off-side.

But this wouldn't change much in terms of fighter dominance in player fleets, AI doesn't get to approach Spark Drovers anyway (whether through sheer fighter mass or because they are screened by warships).
I think fighters are too durable in general. Though it could be a lack of dedicated 'anti-fighter' options, especially in the Autofit lodouts the AI uses. Something like IPDAI but for killing fighters would be nice. The only real dedicated anti-fighter gun is the Devastator, and it's not very good against shielded fighters.

Suggestions / What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« on: January 27, 2020, 08:31:43 PM »
Normal Warships can have their weapons disabled, but Carriers don't seem to have any issue with being shot at. I guess you're supposed to kill the fighters... but that doesn't seem to be very reasonable to do, especially against large numbers of Carriers.

What if carriers lost replacement rate when taking fire on bare hull or something similar? I suppose this might hurt Warship/Carrier hybrid ships a bit much... Perhaps it could be based on the number of decks or something similar? Or maybe decks could be 'disabled' for a time, preventing fighter launches?

Suggestions / Re: Fighters should have bigger hitboxes
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:26:45 PM »
A MKIX Autocannon may be able to reliably overcome frigate armor, but a Hephaestus Assault Gun will kill them much faster than a MKIX would. There's also some frigates and destroyers that have fairly heavy armor.

The MKIX is also significantly worse at hitting fighters than a Hephaestus Assault Gun.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9