16
Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Iron Shell 1.181
« on: May 12, 2023, 10:48:21 AM »
Will the changes to acquiring the eradicator and champion also happen in the 96 compatability patch, or will that come later?
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 25, 2024, 02:24:41 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
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.
17
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: May 08, 2023, 03:44:26 AM »
On the hyperspace slipstreams point, I'd personally like to have that stuff toggable in settings. The new hyperspace topography stuff is somewhat interesting, but I personally find the time in between systems just an annoying hazard
18
General Discussion / Re: Starsector 0.96a-RC6 XP Bonus
« on: May 06, 2023, 09:21:54 AM »
So at least when it comes to farming XP, Wolfpacks with frigates/destroyers ships that punch above weight is the current go to?
19
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: April 17, 2023, 02:53:55 PM »
Bulk Transport is my go to (3-5th) skill. In the timeframe where I have already gotten my go to skills, but don't have the SPs, officers, or ships to grab what I describe as
tree-completing skills (crew training). When the combat layer has nothing to improve a gravitate towards campaign qol just to make my life easier
tree-completing skills (crew training). When the combat layer has nothing to improve a gravitate towards campaign qol just to make my life easier
20
General Discussion / Re: Ship Loadout Guide
« on: March 06, 2023, 06:11:37 PM »
2. Armor tanking is weak due to several reasons, therfore I would expect to mention that. >> First option of choice is use shields. Use shield shunt only as form of experimenting / masochims. Personaly I dont understand all the fuss around Heavy armour s-moded. It does not help you win the fight, but takes longer you to loose. I dont use it on any of my ships. Even Onslaught not. Just not worth it. Armor tanking is last ditch, not regular tactic.
3. Also it forgot another questionable hull mode : Scatter amplifier. >> use only as way off self punishment. It makes any ship worse in any situation.
I think armor tanking is perfectly fine right now, even maybe a bit favored in the current meta. IM and PA officer skills make taking small pinks on armor much easier, and AI is smart enough to flicker when actual HE starts coming in
21
Mods / Re: [0.95.1a] Seeker - Unidentified Contact 0.52rc2 (2023/02/16)
« on: February 24, 2023, 03:06:47 AM »
Bit of a shame vanilla starsector doesn't allow ship recoveries with clean disengages, really disencentivzes players from taking on the same battle multiple times without save scumming. Especially hurts when you have unique modded ships in your fleet
22
Modding / Re: [0.9.51a-RC6][WIP] United Aurora Federation 0.73c
« on: February 22, 2023, 11:58:38 AM »Hello, anyone having issues with the portraits not showing up at the character creation ?
I have reinstalled the game, with only the UAF mod (and it's requirements mods) but still nothing...
Instructions on the pateron have a fix
23
General Discussion / Re: Survey: Your preferable game difficulty
« on: February 09, 2023, 11:08:48 AM »
I play Ironman starfarer, I don't like the galactic stipend, but I don't like losing saves
24
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Vayra's Sector 3.2.1 - D&DSECTOR 2021-03-25
« on: February 07, 2023, 10:37:33 PM »Why is this mod dependent on a version of this game that doesn't exist? Or am I missing something? Cause I have the latest patch downloaded and it still says I am like 2 patches behind or something.
Because the mod itself hasn't been updated in a while, however an officially sanctioned patch made by the Dragn can be found in one of the previous pages.
25
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 29, 2023, 03:16:06 PM »By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
20-40 OP? I think you're missing the fact that you still get to s-mod another hullmod, potentially the most expensive non-s-modded hullmod. So you're only losing 5/15 OP (cruiser/cap), since the built-ins will be balanced around providing ITU-level value (15/25), which seems like a fair trade for the base heavy armor buff.
I guess it depends how good the boost is. The HRS bonus doesn't look great, but the advanced gyros look decent
26
General Discussion / Re: EWM CA NL finally improved?
« on: January 29, 2023, 01:03:55 AM »Energy Weapon Mastery carries wolfpack fleets/small flagships/SO cheese. In those roles it's really ridiculously powerful.
Neural Link is a strange beast. I don't think the community has figured out how to properly abuse it yet - your point in another thread that NL scales off of player investment in combat skills is a hint in the right direction.
Tentatively agree on Cybernetic Augmentation. Story points are cheap and perfectly built officers enable whole new builds but it's extremely situational.
Ballistic Mastery is good for all ballistic ships, while EWM non-elite is only useful for a subset of high tech only builds. It's one of the most flagship dependent skills on the tree.
NL can't really be abused, it eats up a tone of OP, is a capstone skill, and gives command of your ship to the AI. The combination of factors make it hard to exploit the openings NL should in theory give
27
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 29, 2023, 12:59:16 AM »
[quote author=Nia Tahl link=topic=25852.msg386726#msg386726 date=1674942632
I frankly much prefer it if building in HA is actually a choice rather than the automatic option for anything that isn't hightech. We are hardly entering massive spreadsheet optimisation territory here, but there's actually build choice now. The way I see it, the dislike for potential S-mod penalties is just the typical reaction of people to any kind of nerf to anything they like. It's a rather silly clinging to power they feel entitled to.
More build diversity is good, more genuine choices for S-modding is brilliant and I simply can't see any real reason against it beyond "I don't like being a little less powerful"
[/quote]
But I'd argue lowtech in general needs heavy armor, and if possible IM and PA in order to function, while high-tech just requires a good shield flux ratio (already part of most high-tech ships) and fieldmoudulation being optional.
By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
I frankly much prefer it if building in HA is actually a choice rather than the automatic option for anything that isn't hightech. We are hardly entering massive spreadsheet optimisation territory here, but there's actually build choice now. The way I see it, the dislike for potential S-mod penalties is just the typical reaction of people to any kind of nerf to anything they like. It's a rather silly clinging to power they feel entitled to.
More build diversity is good, more genuine choices for S-modding is brilliant and I simply can't see any real reason against it beyond "I don't like being a little less powerful"
[/quote]
But I'd argue lowtech in general needs heavy armor, and if possible IM and PA in order to function, while high-tech just requires a good shield flux ratio (already part of most high-tech ships) and fieldmoudulation being optional.
By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
28
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 28, 2023, 05:14:00 AM »Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" buildsSee, the trick is that the optimal use of story points on spreadsheet ships is that you don't use any and save them for your combat ships instead.
But it's been stated numerous times that lowtech isn't "outdated" but rather just a different school of design in lore
29
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 01:02:15 PM »
I think the changes overall feel good on paper, I'm still worried about that large manuevabilty debuff for HA though.
HA is go to not because it creates OP ships, but rather as its a necessity for a lot of low tech ships to even compete with high tech, high tech shield absorption ratios are so good that in most cases capacitors are better the HS, but lowtech armor being nonreplenishable makes the expensive hullmod needed in most builds
HA is go to not because it creates OP ships, but rather as its a necessity for a lot of low tech ships to even compete with high tech, high tech shield absorption ratios are so good that in most cases capacitors are better the HS, but lowtech armor being nonreplenishable makes the expensive hullmod needed in most builds
30
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 12:57:14 PM »Like Hamakus said, can we stop being rude in a nice way please, there's like 10 previous posts from me that were far more useful than calling out a single post for not stating the obvious.
So here's the obvious part. You want more minmaxing, because this is how you get it. Having unique buffs makes certain hullmods appear strong purely from the bonus part, not the hullmod itself which is backwards game design. Not to mention this would make the 3 s-mod leadership skill much more important than it is right now. Every single specialised ship will gravitate towards the hullmods which bonus benefits them the best. Thus creating the dumbest possible meta we ever had.
In a case where the bonuses are so small it doesn't matter, then there was no point to it in the first place.
The both point is a non-issue in most cases imo. With 15 skill points, the chance you take BOTB already is relatively high. In fact, I'd say it's the only capstone skill that almost everyone takes already, I think balance should already factor in the smod limit at 3, unless wild changes occur