31
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Luddic Path raid never recover the damage
« on: January 28, 2023, 09:20:41 AM »
It's all good 
Fractal Softworks Forum
- February 01, 2023, 01:54:23 PM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); In-development patch notes for Starsector 0.96a (02/01/23)
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.
32
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Luddic Path raid never recover the damage
« on: January 28, 2023, 09:02:17 AM »
Ah - I suspect there's no actual impact on stability at this point - you can check on the stability tooltip. This is just showing you the most recent event that happened. Made a note to take a look at this; I can see how it's confusing.
33
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 12:44:40 PM »
FWIW, I think having stronger or too-unique effects would be troublesome. One thing I want to largely avoid is having hullmods be valued purely because of the s-mod effect. For some of the cheapest ones (e.g. Advanced Turret Gyros) it's harder to avoid, but the goals are to 1) have the bonus be worth the ordnance point-difference between the hullmod cost and the baseline (and not way more), and 2) have the bonus be something you generally want if you already want the hullmod. I don't think the situation of "getting a hullmod just for the s-bonus" is something that should be encouraged.
It's definitely tempting to go more wild with the s-mod effects, though! But I do think that would lead to problems.
As it is now, you're generally picking between some nice but not earthshaking bonuses and "more OP", which feels about right to me.
Edit:
You've got a PM.
It's definitely tempting to go more wild with the s-mod effects, though! But I do think that would lead to problems.
As it is now, you're generally picking between some nice but not earthshaking bonuses and "more OP", which feels about right to me.
Edit:
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.
You've got a PM.
34
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 11:49:38 AM »
They get neither bonuses nor penalties. And, yeah, I hear you about it feeling a little weird, but I don't think it works well otherwise, and, it fits with the theme of hardscrabble spacers improvising stuff that's better than the factory-made thing which is what s-mods already *are*.
35
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 11:32:02 AM »You are being obtuse
Please stay away from personal attacks and take a look at the forum rules.
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 mean, I get what you're saying here, but I don't think it's a very useful argument on its own, which is probably what Draba was getting at. It's true as a generality, but - as you say! - clearly *some* amount of rules/balance is necessary, so it's all down to the specifics of a particular case, deciding what is and isn't needed. You could certainly make an argument against this idea, but "it's single-player etc" is more useful as a supporting justification for a more specific point.
The "Same state" will be achieved in the end.
In this case, the changes *should* make it so that a broader range of options is viable. Not all of these options will be optimal - almost by definition, there's only going to be one of those (unless somehow perfect balance is achieved, which, not very likely) - but still, viable. I think what you might be getting at with the "same state" point is that there'd still be an optimal path, which, fair enough. But - to your other point! - it's a single-player game, balance isn't *that* important, and there should be more viable paths, which is what really matters.
But when something bothers me, I want to get my opinions across as clear as possible. Hell if I never complained, feedback from me would be useless.
And I appreciate it! I'm not even going to say you're necessarily wrong here. I *think*, obviously, that this will be a positive (and also relatively minor) change, but we'll see. There's definitely a player-facing complexity component and it's something I've thought about for a while before moving ahead with this.
This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.
(Not too sure about this aspect of it, to be honest. I know where I want the game to go, generally speaking! So randomly going totally off the rails isn't really a... thing? But at the same time, mistakes happen and a reality check is not a bad thing, either.)
100% my impression but I've pinned Alex as mostly being a "smile and nod" type, player feedback is obviously important but wouldn't give it too much credit for the big picture
Haha! Real talk, feedback is super important and I appreciate it. I'm also not going to just do something purely because of it, but the number of times it's made me look at something in a new way and ultimately make changes is too large to count. It's fair to say that player feedback has helped improve the game *a lot*. (That said, looking at the "why" of the feedback is often the important part.)
36
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 27, 2023, 09:54:43 AM »... but now we need to twist the game around it.
(I think this is our fundamental disconnect here. To me this whole thing isn't a big deal, like, at all? It's a relatively minor tweak to the system; you get some fun bonuses, it's all smoothed out a little design-wise, hopefully making life easier for me going forward. A few hullmods get minor penalties, which - as one should expect, really, sigh - is what gets like 99% of the attention. But regardless - to me, at least - a lot of the reaction is out of proportion to the magnitude of the change. Which, fair enough, it's hard to gauge things without seeing them first hand. And I'll definitely keep an eye on this while playtesting to make sure it feels good.)
37
General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs
« on: January 26, 2023, 03:12:58 PM »
@Grievous69: I get what you're saying, though I think you may be missing a key point here. The problem isn't really that the same things get built in all the time - that's fairly whatever, as far as problems go. It'd be nice if that wasn't the case, but not worth a lot of effort to "fix"; your examples of other things that are no-brainers are well taken, even if there can be disagreement over the specifics.
The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag. Which, I mean - maybe not the biggest problem in the world, but it was getting to be annoying with several hullmods.
Now, I *also* think that getting a bunch of effects from story points is pretty fun, and am hopeful that this will increase build variety in an actual meaningful way - maybe you'll be able to reach viability with some new options by stacking on some s-mod bonuses just so. But by itself this wouldn't be enough for me to want to make these changes.
The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag. Which, I mean - maybe not the biggest problem in the world, but it was getting to be annoying with several hullmods.
Now, I *also* think that getting a bunch of effects from story points is pretty fun, and am hopeful that this will increase build variety in an actual meaningful way - maybe you'll be able to reach viability with some new options by stacking on some s-mod bonuses just so. But by itself this wouldn't be enough for me to want to make these changes.
38
Bug Reports & Support / Re: refund if possible
« on: January 26, 2023, 02:49:06 PM »
Hi - I'm sorry it wasn't to your liking! No worries; sent you a quick email.
39
Suggestions / Re: Buff the Medium Energy Slot
« on: January 26, 2023, 11:31:23 AM »
You've all got the "pulse" part right It's the regular Pulse Laser, set on autofire and sporting its shiny new 0.8 flux efficiency. IIRC one of the tac lasers is replaced with an IR Pulse, too, to give it slightly more sustained dps.
One of the main points of that fit is to give you many ways to upgrade it.
It's the regular Pulse Laser, set on autofire and sporting its shiny new 0.8 flux efficiency. IIRC one of the tac lasers is replaced with an IR Pulse, too, to give it slightly more sustained dps.One of the main points of that fit is to give you many ways to upgrade it.
40
Modding / Re: Misc modding questions that are too minor to warrant their own thread
« on: January 26, 2023, 11:26:55 AM »Absolutely glorious, thank you sir. Ecstatic for the release, just can't bear the wait!
1. There are relationship bars (can be added by method in TooltipMakerAPI), percentage bars in the fleet tab for hull and CR, and also bars with sliders in settings window. From what I've gathered, relationship bars are hardly suitable for anything but relationships themselves as they are not customizable and always show status string like ("Welcoming"), while proper bars and sliders are outside of reach of modders completely.
While I am able to worm my way around this with use of buttons, checkboxes and text fields (sadly, result looks nothing like vanilla), and other modders employed section headings for the same purpose, kinda wanted to ask you: are there any plans to give us proper, vanilla-looking bars and sliders?
Nothing like plans, maybe at some point? There's a lot of UI bits to potentially make API accessible. The "Event" bars will be addable, though, and I think possible to repurpose.
2. It seems that addShipIcons() in TooltipMakerAPI is not quite ideal for the many purposes modders have come to use it for. For example, it is ill-suited for displaying ship images bigger than 128x128, and also does not render weaponry. Is there any way for me to display ships in custom panels (or, ideally, in tooltip instance) the way fleet or refit tab does them?
Yeah, the ship icons are not meant to be displayed at a large size, hence "icon". I don't think the custom ship view is available via the API; wouldn't be a bad thing to add... at some point.
3. What kind of interactable buttons ship list in refit tab and hull list in blueprint tab use for entry items? Currently using area checkboxes (which can be made borderless only through color shenanigans, and that introduces its own problems), but it seems like there are proper method for borders in obfuscated code. Would it be possible for me, given the current API, to emulate vanilla ship lists precisely?
I don't think it can be easily emulated; it's using some stuff that's not exposed.
Just wondering, what's the official stance on using edited in game assets (Assets originating from the default game)? For example palette swapping a hullmod icon to use for a new hullmod.
This isn't a problem at all. For example, people use bits of vanilla ships etc all the time.
41
Mods / Re: Adding mods to your game: first steps
« on: January 26, 2023, 11:18:53 AM »
Moved to Mods and stickied. Great stuff, thank you for putting this together!
43
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Got no key
« on: January 26, 2023, 08:54:28 AM »
Awesome, glad to hear it! I hope you enjoy the game
44
Suggestions / Re: Buff the Medium Energy Slot
« on: January 26, 2023, 08:36:44 AM »HYBRID for Mining Laser?
Yes, but this is a medium weapons thread
On the one hand, now "mining" ships aren't obliged to have energy mounts to get "mining" weapons. On the other, now all ships with med ballistics can mount a 350? hit strength HE weapon with +100 bonus armor damage.
With 500 range, though! And poor efficiency.
45
Suggestions / Re: Buff the Medium Energy Slot
« on: January 26, 2023, 08:31:51 AM »
Yep. Not that you'd *want* to most of the time; it's honestly mostly for flavor.