Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - Immahnoob

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Suggestions / Re: Trade is brokenly unbalanced
« on: April 14, 2021, 03:38:03 AM »
I also can't believe people are seriously arguing that trading needs to be MORE unprofitable.

Aside from drugs and guns, there are literally no commodities in the universe that regularly trade for profit that exceeds the 30% tariffs that you pay on buying AND selling, barring market-breaking shortages. Not a one. That is a scenario that is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity.

I don't think you have had the experience of exploiting the trading system. It is definitely far too profitable.

Supplies, fuel, heavy machinery, luxury goods are all frequently in shortage during the mid to late game. For instance, supplies are often traded at 200+ prices on pirate planets with shortage quantities of 500+ (somtimes 2k shortages even). That's a potential riskless profit of 50k at minimum. All that's needed is a run from Chicomoztec for the surplus black market supplies at ~83 price.

And the 30% tariff is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. You don't even need to take the patrol scan relationship penalty - just enter the market normally and e-burn immediately after selling the cargo.

As another comment pointed out, it's practically impossible to do stealth missions in Hegemony space without phase ships and all-insulated/militarized fleet.

It's entirely possible. The player just needs to bait the patrol away. Stealth mechanics are poorly understood, not underpowered.

To be more precise: buying drugs and weapons doesn't trigger stealth if you're getting it from Eochu Bres, but they only have a limited supply.

That's really not true. Eochu Bres has 1000+ drugs in stock when counting the open market. Sure you pay a 30% tariff to buy drugs at around ~220, but that's more or less not an issue when prices are 450+ on drugs. And this is not even counting the 500+ available on the other tri-tech planet in the same system.

OP is right that this is an amazing way to make money but it's not without risks and honestly I'd have stopped playing the current build if this didn't exist.

It really is riskless. And it doesn't even take skill to make a riskless smuggling fleet and exploit gameplay.

In the mid game, the pirates just don't bother chasing the player because the player is too strong (and the player reaches the mid-game after just 2-3 smuggling runs because the profits are so high).

In the early game, any fleet of hounds with Augmented drives, SO, injectors will never be caught and can disengage from any enemy with zero losses because the fleet will reach 13 burn with 255 in combat speed. Pirates don't even chase when you are that fast, all they do is harry your retreat.

That way Pirate fleets will actually be *** off if you avoid paying Pirate tariffs and chase you to collect "Kanta's cut". Also instead of random scans for contraband, it's random scans for hot loot they can extort from you... giving players the option to give up a slice of their cargo in exchange for staying alive and doing so gives you status that can eventually translate into being cleared for trade. Maybe being on a pirate trade mission makes them let you through regardless of your status.

This seems reasonable in theory but it still does not address the issue in practice; the AI needs to be buffed immensely to be able to prevent a player from just working around this nuisance. First of all, not all pirate shortage planets have patrols; many of them are wide open. Second, shortages are also frequent in core faction worlds. Third, shielded cargo holds are a thing and prevent scans. Four, fast fleets full of hounds aren't difficult to salvage or expensive to buy and they can get into any market without difficulty regardless of the mechanics in place.
This comment is literally "Why are you profiting when you've built your entire session for profit?"

2
Suggestions / Re: Trade is brokenly unbalanced
« on: April 13, 2021, 10:50:25 PM »
Every "suggestion" seems to be "Just throw more fleets at the player or make everything not worth it".
Yeah, if the patrol can't handle me, just make it so that the pirate base suddenly throws about 10x patrols at me, magically, out of nowhere.
I also can't believe people are seriously arguing that trading needs to be MORE unprofitable.

Aside from drugs and guns, there are literally no commodities in the universe that regularly trade for profit that exceeds the 30% tariffs that you pay on buying AND selling, barring market-breaking shortages. Not a one. That is a scenario that is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity.

I can understand making trading more DANGEROUS. That's legit. There should be risk and reward. But nerfing trade into the ground like that just makes me think... why even HAVE a trading system? What's the design philosophy - hell... what's the point - of a game that's impossible to win?

Privateer nailed this aesthetic perfectly. Bounty hunting and merc work are very lucrative, but extremely dangerous and require significant investment in hardware, while trading gives modest returns that can go straight into the red if you run into a fight your trading ship can't handle.

I want to be Han Solo and Malcolm Reynolds. I want to buy low and sell high. I want to dodge pirates and corrupt cops. I want to barely make enough profit to afford fuel and definitely not to afford regular maintenance. I want to survive on the bitter edge of a human civilization descending into madness.

The current system isn't that. The current system is either smuggling or nothing, with no room for an ethically-flexible band of gray-market misfits doing a mix of legit and questionable jobs as they come up.
Yep, I agree with this, there's no in-between, and I honestly start to notice it more with the new skill-tree as well.

3
You don't allocate vram, that is fully automatic determined by your hardware and drivers.
That's good then.
So if now Starsector isn't limited by either RAM or VRAM and still dips, it's out of my hands, huh?

4
"Warping around skill categories..."

What?

5
you can actually allocate more ram for starsector to use ... gotta dig out the thread first tho

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8726.0

there you go
This is kind of a "half-guide". How do I allocate more VRAM?
Also, it seems that the game isn't going to use more than 3 GB in intense fights (made a sim), yet it'll still fall at 80 FPS.
I don't get anything anymore.

EDIT: Thanks for the thread, by the way.

6
General Discussion / Re: The Sensors Skill...
« on: April 08, 2021, 03:01:36 PM »
There seems to be a burn limiter based on the size of the ships you roll as well.
You can cut through nebulas with frigates but if you have a Capital, you'll trudge through slowly even with 10/20.

7
Ah - yeah, I was going to say, if that's what you meant, that only comes up with mods. FWIW I've tweaked the detection a bit so it should be less sensitive. (Let me move this to the modded reports subforum...)

The fps thing is potentially odd - did you have it when running pure vanilla, too?
Ok, thanks.
Yes, I did actually, I could test next week and come back to you with this.

EDIT: I wanted to test something else out and took out vsync and put the FPS limit to 155 (since my monitor is 155hz). But I'm literally here with my monster of a PC and I can't seem to be able to run it at a constant FPS. Outside battle it runs at 100 - 130 FPS and inside it runs at 80 to 100 FPS.

8
Hi - could you clarify what you mean by "RAM errors"?
Sorry about that, I should have made some screenshots.
The game often tells me that I'm running low on RAM in the left side corner, asking me to either close applications or restart Starsector, I'm playing at 1440p as well.
I don't know if the FPS drops are related to that but it's weird that Starsector itself isn't using my PC fully.

I'm also using GraphicsLibs, by the way.

9
So how is it best to order your AI?

Since this thread got better responses than mine, how do you guys make a "Shieldwall" for example to attack a Nexus? How would you make your fleet so they actually try to cover each other to vent since it seems some behavior is based on ships/range/etc?
How do you make ships focus more on ships you clearly want dead?
Also, does targeting with R actually make your automatic fire focus on the target?

10
It's kind of weird but Starsector often gives me RAM errors, and I have enough free RAM galore while I run the game. I also have weird FPS drops despite my system not even being pressured in any way (running at sub-60 fps, like 44 fps in some fights that aren't even that big).

OS: Windows 10 x64
RAM: 32 GB
Graphics Card: RTX 3090
CPU: Ryzen 9 3950x

Is there a problem with the new version maybe? Is there anyone else with this issue? Did anyone solve it with some workaround?

11
General Discussion / Re: New skill system is a step backwards
« on: April 07, 2021, 03:13:58 PM »
Honestly, dude. Speechless.

You do realise me lying about my opinion doesnt make it wrong, yeah? That makes it a lie.

Fundamental communication error.

Peace bro! good luck!

Edit: Nice.
I'm sorry, but it's on you if you thought "wrong" was anything but a synonym for "false". I don't remember making any moral judgments here.
Skill system may need some rework, it is weird in its current state.

Currently, the main character is a fleet commander, while officers are ship commanders. While you can hire/train and find skilled officers who will fight your battles, you can't hire a management or technician officer who will support your fleet. Fleet-wide skills make a huge difference, that makes me take them first and in same order every playthrough:

1. Salvaging (industry) is always the first skill to take in any playthrough, because you start getting stuff immediately and first year is hard on supplies, fuel, guns etc.
2. Navigation (technology) is always the second skill to take in any playthrough, because your fleet needs to jump everywhere to save time and supplies and move faster. Not to mention that you'll need it later for new content of v0.95
3. Contaiment procedures and 4. Makeshift equipment (industry) are a must to decrease costs of travelling, and you will always travel. Scavenging more supplies while using less supplies makes a tremendous difference in gameplay, mainly because you command a single fleet and can't call supply convoy from your planets or allies.
5. Field repairs remove a d-mod every 20 days, which will fix your fleet while you travel at no cost. It takes 800K+ to repair a d-modded radiant, and generally repairing found d-modded XIV legion ships would cost millions otherwise.
Flux management skills like 6. Flux regulation and 7. Special modifications (technology) are a must in any playthrough, many builds need them.
8. Electronic warfare (technology) skill is too OP to miss it in any playthrough.
9. Crew training, 10. Weapon drills and 11. Coordinated maneuvers (leadership) are required to significantly buff up your whole fleet at any stage of the game.
Because of taking so many non-combat skills, player needs officers to do their best in combat, so 12. Officer training and 13. Officer management are a must.
That leaves only two skill points, one of those would probably go to 14. Bulk transport (industry).

Taking any combat skills for main character means your whole fleet becomes less effective from missing out on useful/critical fleet-wide skills. Even those 14 essential skills are to be taken in certain order with minimal differences in any playthrough.

Suggestions:

Please make the skill system fully configurable with simple text files. While developers may have their vision, players may have it completely different so that you'll never be able to satisfy everyone. Modding is the way is such cases. Players will no doubt surprise you with well-thought and properly balanced skill mods.
If the skills become configurable, there will be about twice less posts in this forum section.

It would make sense to remove all industry and technology skills from main player and move them to Chief Engineer character that is referenced while restoring shipwrecks with a story point.

It would help all players to make those essential skills to be passively gained with every new level (of main character or Chief Engineer). Missing them out makes too much difference, and taking them doesn't leave any skillpoints for piloting skills.

It would make sense for combat skills to be splitted into basic essential (like shield and hull efficiency, peak operation time, ship speed and maneuverability) and to specialized skills. Every combat officer would get main skills passively with level, and choose specialization skills, so that you may end up with:
- a missile ship officer
- a carrier commander
- a cloak ninja
- a frigate guerilla
- a capital tankist
- an ECM/ECCM hackerman
- a cargo/fuel trucker
Every combat level may have a selection of skills for those special profiles, so in the end every high-level officer would be useful on any ship because passive essential skills, and do best on a certain type of ship.

It would make sense to completely remove all colony management skills from main character and move them to administrators. How can you manage colony's every process while being dozens of light years away fighting in a system without any communication?

It would be best to focus main character on leadership, as he commands a fleet and a number of colonies, manages officers and administrators, carries trade and faction affairs.
So eventually we'll have every skill? If no, I agree, if yes, I agree even more.
I mean, that's not bad, I think we should be able to slowly "train" until we reach that point. I find this idea that we should be limited in our bonuses kind of weird anyway.
This also feels more natural and complex. It's more of an RPG at that point. It's somewhat similar to what I was talking about earlier in the thread, mixing up some skills that seem to be redundant and have a general increase for base stats while making it possible to specialize for specific gameplay more than just "here's a 20% bonus to your fighters, lol".

In part I disagree with the "colony" part of your post, I mean, you can make that argument for anything, how come we can make a colony with a 1000 crew members? Why is anyone coming to your makeshift 250% hazard colony? And so on...

 


12
General Discussion / Re: New skill system is a step backwards
« on: April 07, 2021, 01:49:57 PM »
Right now the solution to the problem you've presented here is to have skills be randomly placed so there's nothing meaningful to why they're higher tier on the skill tree, which to me seems kind of nonsensical.
I'd rather return to the first instalments of skills, with levels.
I did not advocate for 'random skill placement', please don't put words in my mouth.

I said the higher tier skills are in a higher tier because their effect is more powerful than the lower tier skills. There are some possible exceptions, but I also advocated for those exceptions to be addressed/balanced. This tiering of skills is required for a sense of progression and is also not 'random'. Obviously it can be difficult to compare skills directly like that, so it's a bit subjective, but I think the idea of 'better skills go higher on tree' is both common and relatively effective. I was pointing out that a skill tree structure like that will naturally create skills in lower tiers that feel less impactful, because they have to be so that the higher tier skills are stronger without being over powered.
I didn't say you did, but if we remain like this, it certainly will continue to be random, because right now they're certainly not placed like "weak to strong", they're just different things put together.
I think with how the systems in-game work we can't really have a proper, "progressing skill tree" anyway, unless we take each skill and add % to them, hence why I said "levels to the skills". These are more like "categories", that's why.
Also, this argument about "overpowered" skills in the upper tier is honestly vapid. Come on now, they're slightly underpowered, so we up them a bit and make the lower tiers of the skill be a level 1 "meh" tier, a "middle" level 2 similar to what we have right now and an upper level 3 tier which would be the "buff" we're pretty much requesting.

That is just one example of how progression can be done.
So yeah, opinions can be wrong

oh my.
we are massively off topic here but im doing you a favour.

heres two links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

https://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752

opinions are not facts, you can only tell me whether i am lying about my opinion or not.

I completely understand that taking skills you don't care too much about feels bad sometimes. I've felt that myself. I think having to take skills you don't want to get ones you do is bad and can be alleviated by re-arranging skills to benefit similar parts of the game to nearby skills, but I think having to take skills you're not thrilled about to get skills you want is fine. I like to think about the entire sequence of skills you take as a choice rather than the individual skill. It's ok if some skills are lackluster because you're trying to pick the best sequence of skills and there are trade offs. You don't just get to cherry pick all the best skills. That allows for those better skills to be really good in a way that would be overpowered if you could pick all of them.

Also, I feel like the two things you're asking for are kind of in conflict with one another. On one hand to have a sense of progression, the high tier skills need to be noticeably better than the low tier skills, but if those high tier skills are not overpowered, that means the low tier skills have to be weaker, so now you get those 'meh' skills that you are also complaining about. I think this is a 'have your cake and eat it too' kind of request.

For what it's worth, I do think the high tier skills are noticeably stronger than the low tier ones with a few exceptions, and that can improved with some minor rebalancing.

Agree. ive been shouting this into the abyss.



So opinions can be wrong, after all.
Also, bringing up random articles on the Internet and-pft-Wikipedia doesn't usually change anything. You'd usually have to extrapolate the information you want to show off. What exactly do you even mean to say right now?

13
General Discussion / Re: New skill system is a step backwards
« on: April 07, 2021, 12:47:15 PM »
That isn't contradictory at all, you can have skill levels as well, and with how skills are placed and with how they work, there's no such thing as a "high tier skill", it's just "random skill I can't reach because I'm not a higher level".
...? High tier skills are the ones that require other prerequisites to unlock, low tier skills are the ones that can be unlocked more immediately. The idea of progression is that you take some skills which are weaker but which allow you to get other skills that are better, which requires the skills that get 'unlocked' to be stronger than the first skills? I'm not seeing the issue with that logic.

that's literally what they said
Quote
...you either need to make them feel like an upgrade of sorts, them being better than the skill before...
I'm not sure what you don't understand, I was answering this:
Quote
On one hand to have a sense of progression, the high tier skills need to be noticeably better than the low tier skills, but if those high tier skills are not overpowered, that means the low tier skills have to be weaker, so now you get those 'meh' skills that you are also complaining about. I think this is a 'have your cake and eat it too' kind of request.
Right now the solution to the problem you've presented here is to have skills be randomly placed so there's nothing meaningful to why they're higher tier on the skill tree, which to me seems kind of nonsensical.
I'd rather return to the first instalments of skills, with levels.

14
General Discussion / Re: New skill system is a step backwards
« on: April 07, 2021, 12:25:44 PM »
I assure you, i know what an opinion is.

Hrm. Pardon me if i doubt your psychology credentials.

My friend, you seem to treat your opinion as fact as you seem to treat the definition of opinion is itself a fact.

I feel we are just flinging mud now, we dont seem to understand each other. Thank you for the conversation.
If you knew, you wouldn't think they can't be wrong then. Any judgment or view can be dissected and deemed true or false.
We tend to not do that to people's preferences because it's assumed that people would not lie about them, and verifying them is neither worthwhile nor entirely possible, since you can't read minds.
So yeah, opinions can be wrong.

Depending on what Alex wants, the skill tree will probably change again, as it already did a few times.
But that is the thing, the issue isn't about the player getting the skills they want or not, is that they are having to get skills they most definetely don't want (or are at least ambibalent about)

To be honest, I think part of the problem is in keeping the skill grid, four aptitudes each with the same amount of skill picks, to the point some options seem forced.
On the flip side, there is no feeling of progression between the picks. it is not like I order first a vegetable and then get a vegetable salad, and then maybe a stir fry. I get a vegetable, followed by a nice orange and finally I got raw chicken?

if you are going to have skills unlocked by progression, you either need to make them feel like an upgrade of sorts, them being better than the skill before, or at least a sidegrade (provide some benefits and some maluses) but there is no rhyme or reason here.
and the lineal progression doesn't help

Maybe Alex needs to rework the whole thing without the inherited constraints.
I'd prefer a wider approach more akin to 0.9.1, but I am the sort of player than enjoys that sort of thing, and I really can't tell if I’d be a majority or not. that is something that I can't tell right now.
We have had a few of these threads with quite a few members posting, but, ultimately we might be just loud voices
I completely understand that taking skills you don't care too much about feels bad sometimes. I've felt that myself. I think having to take skills you don't want to get ones you do is bad and can be alleviated by re-arranging skills to benefit similar parts of the game to nearby skills, but I think having to take skills you're not thrilled about to get skills you want is fine. I like to think about the entire sequence of skills you take as a choice rather than the individual skill. It's ok if some skills are lackluster because you're trying to pick the best sequence of skills and there are trade offs. You don't just get to cherry pick all the best skills. That allows for those better skills to be really good in a way that would be overpowered if you could pick all of them.

Also, I feel like the two things you're asking for are kind of in conflict with one another. On one hand to have a sense of progression, the high tier skills need to be noticeably better than the low tier skills, but if those high tier skills are not overpowered, that means the low tier skills have to be weaker, so now you get those 'meh' skills that you are also complaining about. I think this is a 'have your cake and eat it too' kind of request.

For what it's worth, I do think the high tier skills are noticeably stronger than the low tier ones with a few exceptions, and that can improved with some minor rebalancing.
That isn't contradictory at all, you can have skill levels as well, and with how skills are placed and with how they work, there's no such thing as a "high tier skill", it's just "random skill I can't reach because I'm not a higher level".

15
General Discussion / Re: New skill system is a step backwards
« on: April 07, 2021, 11:38:16 AM »
Don't worry, opinions can also be wrong since this isn't a matter of "preference". This is a matter of efficiency, and in the confines of this binary choice, the only meaningful choices are like three on all trees.
I'll tell you one thing though, when you're trying to appeal to your customers, you don't listen to the 5%, you listen to the 95%. I'll assure you that psychologically, most will not gimp themselves and pick the worst option unless they're kind of done with your game so they're trying to squeeze it dry, it's actually really their playstyle, or they don't know better.
Carriers suck right now, and their skills do not help them pretty much at all is the issue here, so why would you ever go carrier? Let's actually forget the part where carriers suck. Why would you not go generalist and still go carrier because the skills don't factor in at all because the carrier skills suck? You'd do better as a carrier if you'd pick the generalist side, it's certainly more useful.

Phase ships are your only example and you keep on bashing them on the head, but even there, the only one that is TRULY needed is operating time, while the other is useless since you don't have shields, but that's the only playstyle difference, mostly because of game mechanics.

Again, this skill system isn't good.


No, opinions cannot be wrong.
With that out the way, yes, its about efficiency, and ill tell you one thing though, if you are flying a carrier and you havent picked the birds at tier 1 then youre not being efficient when you are flying that carrier. What you ARE doing is choosing to be flexible, you dont think you will be flying carriers very much, so you will pick something that universally applies. This is a choice between specialisation and flexibility.
Theres apparently a communication breakdown as to what choices you are making and where you are making them. Never mind.

Here we go again regarding your perspective. Are you assuming you represent 95% of customers? Are you sure that you arent just a part of the displeased and yet very vocal 5%? I cant remember statistics but people tend to scream about being annoyed rather than scream about being happy.

Carriers do not suck. they have, however, received a very long time coming NERF. They were stupid strong and they are great against phase ships still, for a start. Hell, i even rocked omega using fighters.

Whats the obsession with my supposed obsession with phase? Shall i do carriers as an example? I wont but i could. I thought the example was a gentle method to articulate your perspective.
You don't know what an opinion is then, pick up a dictionary. And yes, psychology pretty much says I'm the 95%. Play the game for a bit and you'll suddenly move away from defensive options unless you can't pick otherwise, or game mechanics force you there, or again, you're not the type that improves in any way.

Your pick on specialization for carriers isn't as good as being "flexible", because you'd certainly do more with your carriers without picking the clearly bad skill.
Carriers suck and you're better off replacing the spots they fill with suckiness with something more useful, like pretty much every other ship in existence, or at least with hybrids, like the Legion if you really want to waste your time with carriers right now.

Serenitis has the right idea from a perspective.
I still think that these skills either need to be made to be "generalized but with caveats", or have more options to specialize properly and in a useful manner.
Besides that, many of them need to be rearranged, and respecing shouldn't cost you your Elite Skill story points.




Pages: [1] 2 3 4