Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

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 - slowpersun

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
A weapon mount is an option, not an obligation to put a weapon there. One of the tips even directly says that it's perfectly okay to leave some mounts empty, and in fact it's often better to, if the ship is flux-limited or OP-limited (rather than mount-limited). Different mounts have different sizes, types, firing arcs, etc. The player can pick and choose which weapon mounts are the most useful for their desired ship role.

How many new players cycle through every and all tips?  Perhaps someone should drop a poll and ask newbs...

But regarding variations on ships vs weapon slots as options, designing a ship with multiple slots that aren't necessarily intended for use is just a trick to save time for dev design and coding.  The same ship with different weapon configurations that are always fully loaded is correct way to go, just tedious as hell for dev to **** out.  Got other fish to fry.  Deadlines to hit.

For example, just because a keyboard has a lot of keys doesn't mean the person has to use all of them. They just use whichever ones are the most useful at that point in time. Same with the apps on a smartphone, etc.

These are false dichotomies.  You don't pop out all the keys you don't use out of your keyboard.  They might pop out eventually from wear and tear, but then you just go buy a new keyboard if you can't pop the missing key back in.  Even some grandma who never uses F1-F12 will buy a new keyboard.  Whereas apps on phones generally don't have a limit on what apps can be added beyond just memory; configuration/location of apps can change, but player can't change location of weapon mounts on ships.

Either come up with legitimate examples or at least ad hominem attacks, but don't waste my time...

General Discussion / Re: Ships that could use a slight OP boost
« on: December 03, 2021, 05:55:48 PM »
...Well, except for the case where an AI-controlled carrier with bombers tries to send a fighter strike at some random far-off target and has its bombers fly right past a bunch of other enemy ships; in that case the bombers do get actually killed, and replacement rate starts to matter. Yet another reason I prefer carriers with the reduced engagement range d-mod; less likely to pull that kind of stunt.

Hence why I've made some points about how implementing some form of pathfinding is becoming more and more of a requirement.  Not say D* Lite is the best or only solution, but something, please, stupid AI decisions like the above example just kill the game.  How game AI might determine best location for deploying fighters/bombers for zones of control, that I have no good (or even bad) ideas regarding, beyond it being necessary to implement some sort of valuing algorithm that makes game AI want to block off enemy access routes (essentially reverse pathfinding).  But without a low data budget/elegant implementation of pathfinding, game would prolly brick up on lower tier systems if pathfinding were added, and it has been made clear that compromises have been made so that this game can be available over a wider set of computer systems.  Just glad no one is trying to make a console version yet (after 1.0, maybe), this can cause terrible tradeoffs... see dropdown for short rant.
Cyberpunk 2077 is a perfect example of neutering a game in order to make it also available on consoles, hopefully they add everything back in a few years in a patch that for newer consoles only and basically splits the game between cruddy older consoles and everyone else.  But that is a rant for another forum!

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: December 03, 2021, 05:32:25 PM »
  • Sabot SRM: reduced EMP damage to 200 (was: 400)
  • Hurricane MIRV: reduced number of submunitions to 9 (was: 11)
  • Squall MRLS: increased ammo to 160 (was: 100)
  • Swarmer SRM: increased ammo to 80 (was: 60)
All of these appear to be better balanced, guess I have less of a reason to just jam sabots onto whatever I can't think of something better for!
Sabot (Single):
  • Changed to (Double)
  • Ammo increased to 2, with a 10 second reload delay
  • OP cost increased to 2
Interesting tradeoff, maybe I will still jam smaller sabots on instead.
  • Pilum LRM:
    • Range reduced to 4000 (was: 10000)
    • Damaged changed to 500 fragmentation plus 500 EMP (was: 500 HE)
    • Added a second stage that's faster (Harpoon-level speed) and triggers on approach
    • Increased hitpoints to 150 (was: 50)
    • Has a chance to fire off a shield-piercing EMP arc dealing 500 EMP damage
      • Chance based on target's hard flux, same as for other shield-piercing effects
    • Other stats mostly unchanged - still very slow (except for 2nd stage), low OP cost, ammo regen
    • Overall goals:
      • Make it into a useful very-long-range support weapon
      • But not one that benefits excessively from being fielded in huge numbers
The meat and potatoes of the missile changes, tradeoffs appear to make Pilums better but not like when they were the God of missiles.  Still would be interesting to add a cheaper second Pirate (or maybe LPath, but pirates just seem more missile happy) version of Pilums that keeps old/current range of 10000, but worse stats than current version of Pilum.  Just my opinion, but should balance benefits of being "fielded in huge numbers."
  • Shield Shunt:
    • Removed EMP resistance bonus
    • Now increases armor by 25%
So does this mean that only Resistant Flux Conduits Hullmod is only EMP resistance HullMod now?  No armor-related version, just flux related?  I smell another new low tech HullMod!  But maybe not, I guess it depends on how balanced this works out to be.  But would have to wait for 2023 update anyway, way too late currently.
  • Fixed issue with "deliver VIP" mission at the Galatia Academy not having a time limit
I've been meaning to ask about some of the GA quests lacking time limits in general, but this answers at least one of the questions.  Still, wouldn't the hostage negotiation mission also have a time limit?  IIRC, it does not... unlike the "buy tech from LPath" mission, that appears less in need of a time limit (although still maybe needs one, just with a much longer time limit.  Seller holding an illegal item and all).  Alternatively, if player takes too long for buyer, maybe the price change isn't so unreasonable after all (as in, if player shows up within time limit, buyer won't always ask for more money).

Blog Posts / Re: Of Slipstreams and Sensor Ghosts
« on: December 03, 2021, 02:15:46 PM »
It will become a kind of silk road in space.

More like the North Atlantic Current/North Atlantic Oscillation.  Or at least the seasonal shifts of mostly wind for historical Arab trading dhows in the Indian Ocean.  Wind isn't the only thing that moves ships, but much more easily controlled than water currents... just also much less predictable.  Still, can't wait for hyperspace hurricanes!

Suggestions / Re: (splitoff from another topic) Colony Skills
« on: December 03, 2021, 02:00:43 PM »
The biggest issue is going to be that Alex wants colonies to be a tool for solving the endgame, but he is unwilling to say anything about it, so we just have to guess what he wants colonies to do, or basically what does the order tab do.

This is the question, basically.  I think Alex was intending to have colony/colony skills basically complement the orders tab so that anyone who went colony instead of ship combat skills could deploy way more stuff from colony to make up for cruddy combat skills.  But instead he just threw in the towel and added full respeccing for whatever reason.  Not like slow partial respeccing (where player can only reskill like 1 skill per cycle after max level reached), just straight full respeccing.  Definitely solved a lot of issues (and a lot of complaints), but hip shot solutions do tend grate on basically anyone who isn't positively affected (so both anyone neutral and those negatively affected).  But now that respeccing is in the game, I don't expect it to get dropped when mythical colony update arrives.

As for OP about colony skills, IMHO only allowing admins to have colony skills seems most reasonable solution with least ridiculousness.  Removing them from the player meta/skills next update might be a compromise, but definitely a compromise I could get behind so long as admins don't become generic stand-ins for misfires of colony game loop.  Since otherwise basically forces player to use alpha core admins, which appears to be a trap for end-game:

Mods / Re: [0.95a] Nexerelin v0.10.3g "SpaceLand Battle" (fixes 2021-11-26)
« on: December 03, 2021, 10:46:15 AM »
Does anyone have a good tutorial for invasions? Trying to fight some of the NPC factions that *arent* pirates and Pathers and losing horribly as I can't possibly land enough heavy troops to fight the 10k+ army strength they have before the initial troops die. I'm doing everything I can, including using abilities, but I can't seem to win and the 6k marines I brought with me are all dead.

I couldn't say tutorial, but with the addition of a supply requirement to deploy troops (which has kind of a weird growth factor, though that should be balanced eventually), player is basically forced to always raid for supplies first before deploying troops.  So raid for supplies before invading!  System in general will prolly need some more balancing, it is very new.  But yes, I invaded another faction's planet in my system but didn't bother to bring over enough supplies to hang out in orbit after deployment (which mod basically kinda requires), lost all troops in time it took to fly back to my planet and back.  Only occurred to me after that one just needs to always raid for mo' supplies before invading.  I guess if anything, invading needs some sort of scout function to nominally estimate supply invasion cost; more likely just use operatives instead (since operatives ARE a huge part of this mod), but since scouts are a military thing and player gets so few operatives:

I mean, could literally make a scout commodity unit like crew or marines to accomplish this, but adding commodities is a surprisingly controversial sell on this forum, plus up to Histidine anyways.  So maybe just the abstract concept of scouts are necessary (even though theoretically future BS fleet sensors in orbit should basically do the trick, and/or too close to Star Wars probe droid).  However, since operatives would likely be more preferable, info player gets when deploying an operative to an invasion target would likely include an estimated total supply cost for invading, which then gets modified if player has operative soften target up (although would also modify if enemy faction AI makes certain improvements to planet or more marines appear, it would go both directions).

General Discussion / Re: Ships that could use a slight OP boost
« on: December 03, 2021, 05:18:01 AM »
If it was all simple and intuitive, there wouldn't be much challenge to overcome, no? That, and Alex doesn't immediately know what slots will or will not be used, and ultimately it helps, since ships are assigned OP on a "X per mount, plus some extra" basis.
I mean, the rest of the game is still a challenge.  Fleet composition, supply/fuel consumption, $$ generation, colonies, battle tactical choices, game storyline.  Besides, I'm not saying that the flux system isn't an elegant solution to ammo counters, or that the capability to customize ship flux capacity isn't interesting.  But weapon choice per ship mount layout does seem to particularly opaque to the average player.  Said average player seems to only get like 50+ hours into the game before they realize they can put smaller weapons into a larger mount size... which at least gives it the appearance of a newb trap, even if that wasn't the intention.

Plus, isn't OP determined by an "X per mount per mount size, plus a totally arbitrary amount that may change every patch for balance reasons" basis?

also, yeah, more flux instead of just more tankiness on low tech ships would be nice...

I think this runs counter to the meta of low tech ships, tanky and slow vs. hi tech ships being fast and flux efficient but heavily reliant on shields.  Not to mention low tech getting a lot of love with next patch to hopefully counter the obvious advantages of the hi tech meta.  But yeah, Mora is kinda ridiculous.  Why can't it also just poop fighters out the back like the Legion?  Both are low tech battle carriers...

General Discussion / Re: Ships that could use a slight OP boost
« on: December 03, 2021, 03:37:50 AM »
Regarding all carriers you listed (and basically just carriers in general, except Shepard), at least some of their issues stem from the inconsistent nerfing/unbalancing of fighters & bombers in general.  So perhaps the carrier issues should be generally separated from regular ships.  You don't need to be Megas to know there are issues afoot with carriers/fighters & bombers!  But until there is a more specific carriers/fighters/bombers balancing patch (ideally with at least waypointing, if not pathfinding, but that is a topic for another thread) , kinda pointless to discuss them in a vacuum...

As for the Astral specifically, well, that is interesting.  I dunno which
one and only build it makes sense.
you're referring to, but unless you want to arm your glass cannon with MIRVs for some of that extra BOOM (when it blows up from being Icarus, not when it blows other stuff up), putting large missile weapons in the large missile slots are a trap.  Astrals basically exist to use Plums in its missile slots.  Accept it or start sacrificing carrier slots for extra OP necessary for large missile weapons.  Which defeats the purpose of the Astral's long range capabilities, recall device isn't intended for close range use... although yes, it can be used to further speed up the stream of bombers.  Just also speeds up CR decay if close to enemy ships; sometimes range is good!

However, I do agree that it seems odd that Astral has to basically choose between using the only real useful carrier hull mod (Expanded Deck Crew), actually using decent fighters/bombers, and shaving OP with cruddier weapons in slots.  Though some of this personal cognitive dissonance just naturally arises from trappish nature of having to shave OP with cruddier weapons in general, since it seems to essentially violate multiple basic design principles existing in real life (form follows function, KISS principle, don't use 5 when 3 will do, etc.).  Really ****s on verisimilitude, although I of course accept some level of abstraction (and therefore compromise) is necessary since this is a game.  But no one in real life adds stuff (weapon slots) in order to be left empty.  I mean, if there was some in-game lore reason why stuff can and should be left empty, fine.  But as far as I know, there isn't.  Hmm, funny, OP reposted as I was drafting with same complaint, why put extra weapon slots in unless its a newb trap?

As for the addition of the 30 second cool down to the Recall Device (plus normal crazy high flux cost), allowing 2 charges with like a 25 second recharge per charge would be a much better alternative.  Another alternative is just to have a shorter cool down with a growth curve over time, so shorter earlier in battle but grows over time; this second alternative does seem a much messier compromise though...

Agree 100% with OP. Also, in the same vein, I propose that if you go over crew capacity, instead of consuming additional supplies, random crew members should mysteriously start jumping out of airlocks.

Need a mutiny mechanic to balance.  Which I have suggested before on multiple threads, so agree!

General Discussion / Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« on: December 02, 2021, 10:26:09 AM »
I would rather have SP improve the ship directly by increasing max OP (by 5/10/15/25 per SP), so that hullmod cost does not matter, instead of s-mods on the ship.

This seems reasonable.  Likely controversial, but reasonable.

I think the fuel drain should be pretty slow because otherwise there's no point to going over, given how long we typically spend in real space vs hyper. Yeah, that will probably cause people to keep their fuel a little over max, but there are still speed penalties with that so it should be okay.

Is there any sort of drain in normal/real space at all (anymore?)?  I had always assumed that fuel loss technically occurred in real space, but it was like 3-4 orders of magnitude below hyperspace, so in practice the most you might lose exploring a system is like 2-3 fuel, maybe 4-6 max.  I mean, I haven't ever really noticed any fuel loss in normal space, but then again, I haven't really been checking.  I guess it's relatively trivial to just crack the game code open and check for myself, but for all I know I might end up finding legacy code instead of whatever is the current means of control.  But of course it would be easier math to just have no loss in real space, so fewer maths prolly trumps realism...

Kinda wondering why excess fuel isn't "overflowing" into cargo space ?

maybe at a loss of effeciency like each unit of fuel in cargo takes two instead of one

IonDragonX is entirely correct, it is anti-matter, at least as stated in the game.  I guess the implication is that cramming too much genie into the bottle stresses its containment system, requiring excess maintenance.  But this is definitely not explained anywhere in the game as far as I am aware.  So if you have a better BS lore idea, please, do share it.

But having antimatter overflow into the cargo hold would have explosive results!  Or at least require generating more BS than is worth a dev's time trying to otherwise backstop lore...

General Discussion / Re: Why can't I cancel transverse jump?
« on: December 02, 2021, 02:15:06 AM »
you know you can rebind keys right? for example you could rebind the key for transverse jumping to mouse 4 or something
the options are there, you just gotta use them

No offense, but you seem to be kinda missing the point.  Rebinding a key won't prevent someone from accidentally hitting it, though it may reduce the likelihood.  If anything, I'm prolly more likely to hit it if I were to bind it to one of my stupid extra mouse buttons I never use on a wireless mouse that has RGB coloring for no other reason than to jack its price up.

As for why someone doesn't rebind, most likely force of habit.  I mean, do you brush your teeth with your non-dominant hand on even numbered days?  No, because you always brush your teeth with your dominant hand unless your dominant hand is injured.  So next time you injure your dominant hand, please try brushing your teeth with it...

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: December 01, 2021, 10:58:14 PM »
Honestly wanting every game I play to be a socioeconomic simulator is probably my biggest issue. I'm still working on modeling faction relations in my fantasy trading sim...

Oof, man, you gonna die of either a burst bladder or starvation when Dwarf Fortress hits Steam...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25