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: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 27, 2023, 03:56:37 PM »

I wrote this elsewhere but it fits better here.

Gamers instinctively know to make the biggest ruckus before something goes through as that's generally the only time they have.  In my ~40 years of playing video games I can count on one hand the times a dev changed things "back" because they were wrong and the "gamers" were right (relatively speaking).

I also stand by my marketing comment.

If you are given the choice between adding 50% HP to all the enemies or taking away the equivalent amount of damage from weapons players already use - it's better to increase the HP of enemies even if the end result is the same.  The perception will be more agreeable to the human psyche.  Humans hate having something "taken away."   In my head (and I think the naysayers) - its' like this.  "the cheap S-mods get an even better bonus"  "The mid S-mods aren't molested" - "The must have S mods (for some ships/builds) are being nerfed/penalized and we have to make trade offs."

Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" builds,  Atlas, IIRC cannot fit both AD and Military subsytems.  Yes, we could go back to Tug gameplay-  but in my playthroughs (with the current build) I still use tugs- even with S-modded Atlases - I'll have 1 or 2 S-modded atlases for general fleet movements -saves a bit of busy work in the mid game - but I'll have a larger fleet of stock atlases when I'm tasking to make big moves - and with those I bring tugs.  I also bring tugs for a main battle fleet as S-modding an AD on the biggest combat ships is a bit of a waste of an Smod slot.   

well now lets say you added a penalty to Augmented drive to "re balance" its value if S-modded.  Lets say if you S-mod it it increases fuel and supply usage by 50% - now it's practically a Dmod - and further wipes out any "gains" it as an Smod might bring as now you might as well bring a Tug.  I'm making up the trade off to illustrate a point - not that I believe that would be the trade off or that they would be that harsh.

There is a similar *potential* conflict with combat S-mods - if the "penalties" are too great it will completely top-down cascade ruin some playstyles and builds.  I don't know them all - I'm mainly an Onslaught low tech fan - but I'm sure there are some builds somewhere where any given penalty will shift the OP balance to the point that the "build" is unusable.  Some builds are only possible because of one or two OP (usually in the frigate/destroyer range)-

Or take the poor shield performance of low-tech as an example - A nerf to Missiles S mod (which low tech is biased towards) may un-seat an entire flowchart of moving OP and mods around to the point that Low tech Cruisers and below become functionally dead weight.  - because 20 or so OP are missing - 

"I need to use vulcans instead of double light machine guns to free up OP - but the shorter range means reapers reach the shields before the PD can kill them - even though they wouldn't have reached the hull - The shield takes more hits - but Midline and High Tech dont' suffer as much,  they both have the speed and/or better shields to be able to back off more easily than low tech.  Do I now slot in hardened shields into builds I wouldn't have before to force this to work?  No,  lets just instead of Smodding missiles, eat the OP difference and go with [whatever] instead - but that leads to... " etc. etc.   It's not *just* the actual trade off effect (and I don't even know what they are other than the 50% missile thing) - it's the potential forcing out of builds because of the trade off.   There may be some "trade off" effects that actually make some current builds impossible.   

I've noticed the most "strict" tweaking happens at the Destroyer level.  (you would think frigate but I've found they have more latitude than destroyers in builds, chiefly because of their excess speed and maneuverability relative to most other ships).

I'll flatly be amazed if the changes go through and unintentional nerfs "further down the flowchart" aren't a result. 

2

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 27, 2023, 12:19:45 PM »

You are being obtuse

Please stay away from personal attacks and take a look at the forum rules.

I called him out for purposely misinterpreting the critique I laid at the system, which had nothing to do with him, that he then used (the misinterpretation) to suggest I go play with putty since I didn't know why rules exist in games.   

Purposely misunderstanding something can be described as being "obtuse" -it's not a personal attack it's a call out for what happened.   "Go play with putty" is a personal attack as it insinuates a lack of cognition. - To which I was responding and clarifying that I understood why rules in games exist.

You warned the wrong comment.

Get called stupid then get warned for telling the person who called you stupid to not call you stupid.

3

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 27, 2023, 10:22:09 AM »

A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list.   This doesn't fix the meta issue.

Practically it's getting something like ~5-15 OP on a capital for a negative effect (cost difference compared to building in a no penalty 25 OP mod).
Absolutely no reason for the downsides to be 100% out of line with the cost (similar to the majority of the game's standard weapons and hullmods, those also offer various tradeoffs for OP).

Make all the ships the same.

A new mechanic is probably being added to increase variety if you do not want to handicap yourself.
It removes some obvious best cases and adds alternatives, that's the opposite of uniformisation.

It's a single player sandbox game.   
..
Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.

If you genuinely do not understand why single player games need restrictions to make them fun just grab a pencil, some putty or a CAD program.
100% freedom with no rules to get in the way.

You are being obtuse.

My point in it being a single player game was to point out that if something is a little more powerful than something else - it won't matter much.
No restrictions at all would of course make for a very boring game, actually, it wouldn't be a game it would be a tech demo or some sort of numbers simulation.

I was critiquing the logical conclusion, you decided to comment "to the man."

And it still doesn't refute my point that if the maluses are too great most players will just default to the next most expensive OP cost mod Or divert to the "new best" mods with the double buffs/bonuses.   And if they are not then they will be inconsequential anyway.

"Meta" will re-establish itself and it will end up with the same end state where we are now. - except a slightly different.

It's a marketing thing -  Making all the enemies stronger would be the same as making all the weapons weaker - however the former is perceived by humans as less of a bad thing.  You aren't "taking away" something.

The maluses are similar - they are "taking away" something when the opposite could have been performed.  It's busy work.

That said, while I don't like the change it's not so great a change that it will make me not play the game or anything - it will just be yet another "game knowledge wipe" and we all start the "meta chasing" again from scratch.   

The "Same state" will be achieved in the end.  - and that's what I roll my eyes at.

4

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 27, 2023, 08:34:15 AM »

I don't like it but I also don't care because no matter how much Alex tries to hammer down the "meta nail" another will crop up.   My prediction is players just drop the expensive mods and eat the OD - but pivot to the lightweight mods with the bonus buffs.  It's silly to add disadvantages to what is supposed to be some sort of "bonus"

It's going in circles.  "here, you get a bonus for doing this thing"  "wait, I don't like how you all are choosing the same best bonuses."  "Ok, that's it, I'm functionally removing the bonus for doing this thing."

ok, just remove S mods then.  It's just silly.

A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list.   This doesn't fix the meta issue.

and here is the biggest thing -

It's a single player sandbox game.   

You don't need to balance out this one niche and rare resource.

Meta would be developed if all mods and skill trees and elite talents and what have you were removed anyway.

It would then be a case of Hull vs. OP vs. Weapon cost.

Can't have that- so why don't we just pre-arrange and perma-fix 1 or 2 builds you can choose per hull, with no customization beyond the two loadouts.

oh no - everyone will choose the best hulls with the best loadout.

So we should then remove the loadouts and just have 1 hull per loadout.

Then players will just choose the best ship.

Cannot have that.

Make all the ships the same.

Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.

5

General Discussion / Re: The game became too hard

« on: April 15, 2021, 06:16:13 PM »

End game should not be balanced against the optimum pigeonholed talent tree selection.   It should be balanced against the worst possible trio of tree selections (15 points).   If the worst possible trio of tree selections cannot manage in end game it means either end-game is imbalanced or those trees are poorly constructed and under powered (and should be re-worked).

Especially since you cannot respec (end tree permanency)

A different methodology is fine - for example, lets say industry facilitated zerg spam of fleets/units where the player wins against "end game" via attrition.  Fine, no uber pristine ships with max tip-top officers - but a general doctrine that "wins."

As it stands now,  unless you spec/build and play into a very specific skill tree vs. doctrine vs. fleet comp - "end game" is frustrating at best, broken and unmanageable at worst.

Or, I could just go back to PPT sabotage with a rolling stack of dooms that solo deploy over and over.   "Yay, fun!"

6

General Discussion / Re: How are you actually supposed to do 'Stealth' missions?

« on: April 15, 2021, 05:18:20 PM »

single phase ship (lowest profile signature). 

"bait" the escort away from the satellite- as far as they will leash with shutting off transponder.

Let them inspect you, take either the rep hit or use a story point.

emergency burn back to satellite.

Worked for me.

7

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Starship Legends 1.4.1 - Extra flavor for ships, crew, and NPCs

« on: July 19, 2020, 03:18:28 AM »

New to modding - but long time starsector player.  Thought I'd share some kudos and observations.  Love the mod. It's likely one of my favorite.
While I sometimes don't like how much the mod punishes taking hull damage -it only really comes about in the early game before you get a pick of your fleet comp so I've since gotten used to it.  The way the mod weighs fights encourages "some" cheese - "bring sacrifical decoys so you can hog all the damage" etc.
Further, I'm not sure if this is the mod or Ruthless - but it does not fairly weigh being out-numbered in the difficulty calculation - I don't know if there is a way to fix that.  I'll get an "easy" rated battle where me and another cruiser have to go up against a dozen frigates and it will say I've got the easy job.  Could also be about the Dmods.  Once again, just an early game issue when you are climbing up through fleet strength.  Once I hit mid game it's no longer an issue.

I don't know if you are in the mood for ideas but reading through the thread made me have a few.
It seems the majority of "issues" mod users run into seem to be with transparency as to why something did or did not happen - I'm not sure if this is possible in the mod - but lets say a player has a 100% difficulty 400% accomplished battle - but no one gets promoted nor do negative buffs get purged or positive buffs applied -  Would it be possible for there to be a little blurb in the battle report where "nothing happens" but "could have happned - just didn't this time"?

Example.  100/400% battle, no hull damage etc. Famous ship with one negative issue - lets say something like limited weapon range.   "The battle went great - but we are still working on those defective targeting systems, a little more time captain"/scottish accent.  or something like that - I don't even know if it would be possible and I do know it would be a significant amount of text/flavor text work if it were - just a thought.  Just something to let users know "the dice rolled - but nothing happened, but something could still happen, the dice are still rolling" etc.

Connected to the above and my general love of the mod - any possibility of a mechanic involving an officer being promoted from within "The crew" of a ship?  Perhaps one that hits famous without have an officer leading them.  I imagine you could have it trigger next time you go to a station and "visit the bar."
"You take the shuttle down to the local bar."
"You notice a particularly jovial group that you recognize from one of your fleet's cruisers, the [name tag Famous (no officer) trigger].   You approach the crew and signal the bar tender you are covering their tab"  (I don't code, obviously).
"A young crewman seems to be the center of attention..."
etc. etc.
Maybe have it so while they are level 1 they have a fiercly loyal crew from the outset?

Just a thought.

Had one question.   Is famous the highest rank?

8

Modding / Re: Any mod that actually enlarges the sector?

« on: July 07, 2020, 10:47:50 PM »

Ahh, thanks, perfect, exactly what I was looking for.   

9

Modding / Any mod that actually enlarges the sector?

« on: July 07, 2020, 10:41:44 PM »

I've been lurking for years and just recently got into modding - and am loving it, and am deep into it.  One question though, with the major popular mods installed there is very little "unexplored" space left - at least relative to Vanilla.   Are there any mods that enlarge the "Sector" area?  It's getting a touch cramped.  Thanks in advance.