31
Mods / Re: [0.98a] Tahlan Shipworks
« on: April 18, 2025, 12:05:25 PM »
I remember someone asking the same question and Nian replying that it was working as intended.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- May 15, 2025, 08:28:34 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.98a is out! (03/27/25)
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
General Discussion / Re: Make officers great again
« on: April 18, 2025, 08:25:48 AM »
Am I the only one thinking we currently have a good balance between flagship / no-flagship style of fleet ? 
Though I agree that building Officers is boring. It's not even hard, just tedious, unless you save scum (which isn't healthy for the game).
Though I agree that building Officers is boring. It's not even hard, just tedious, unless you save scum (which isn't healthy for the game).
33
General Discussion / Re: Underperforming weapons
« on: April 18, 2025, 03:27:09 AM »
LAG - Agreed. It is underperforming, but only slightly. It's a good weapon against frigates and fighters, but it generates too much flux to be used on low-tech frigates and because of how armor works, it is mostly a waste on larger ships. However, I think a very small buff to its flux efficiency might be enough (0.9 flux efficiency).
LMG - Imo, all SO-oriented weapons (LMG, DLMG, HMG & Assault Chaingun) would need some work. These weapons are pigeonholed into SO (especially the Chaingun). I don't really know what should be done about them though. For example, the Heavy Blaster can be used outside of SO builds whereas the Assault Chaingun cannot.
Flak - Disagree. The Flak is a niche weapon, but it has its uses on ships like the Enforcer, the Dominator, etc. The Dual Flak is indeed better but it generates way more flux than the Flak and it is almost restricted to capital ships because of that (or shield-shunted ships).
Thumper - Disagree. It's a niche weapon and yes, it really doesn't like residual armor (but its theoretical DPS is so incredibly high that it deserves it). But it is used and does fine on ships that can support it. Most of the time you see it on Onslaughts and Retributions, but I've had good results on Dominators & Eradicators armed with Annihilator missiles for anti-armor. It's also a really good weapons on its own against frigates which aren't resilient enough to afford being hit by so many projectiles despite being fragmentation. I do get that not being affected by AAF is weird, but that's something that I like about it : its performances are very stable regardless of the ship on which you use it.
Gauss Cannon - Agreed. This weapon isn't properly supported by any ship we currently have (except the Conquest and Manticore and both have better options). When I compare it to the Tachyon Lance (which is the energy equivalent of a "sniper" weapon), I don't see the point of the Gauss Cannon. The Tachyon Lance has enough damages on its own to be a menace to frigates and destroyers while being a great anti-armor / EMP weapon against larger targets. On the other hand, the Gauss Cannon is far less accurate and cannot "snipe" fast targets (because of projectile travel time even though it has no recoil and excellent projectile velocity), its anti-armor performance is decent but far inferior to any proper anti-armor weapon and it generates lots of flux. And on top of all of that, it has so much range that you can't couple it with any ballistic HE weapon !
It needs a buff, but I don't know how to fix it. Buffing its flux efficiency won't be enough to make it appealing.
LMG - Imo, all SO-oriented weapons (LMG, DLMG, HMG & Assault Chaingun) would need some work. These weapons are pigeonholed into SO (especially the Chaingun). I don't really know what should be done about them though. For example, the Heavy Blaster can be used outside of SO builds whereas the Assault Chaingun cannot.
Flak - Disagree. The Flak is a niche weapon, but it has its uses on ships like the Enforcer, the Dominator, etc. The Dual Flak is indeed better but it generates way more flux than the Flak and it is almost restricted to capital ships because of that (or shield-shunted ships).
Thumper - Disagree. It's a niche weapon and yes, it really doesn't like residual armor (but its theoretical DPS is so incredibly high that it deserves it). But it is used and does fine on ships that can support it. Most of the time you see it on Onslaughts and Retributions, but I've had good results on Dominators & Eradicators armed with Annihilator missiles for anti-armor. It's also a really good weapons on its own against frigates which aren't resilient enough to afford being hit by so many projectiles despite being fragmentation. I do get that not being affected by AAF is weird, but that's something that I like about it : its performances are very stable regardless of the ship on which you use it.
Gauss Cannon - Agreed. This weapon isn't properly supported by any ship we currently have (except the Conquest and Manticore and both have better options). When I compare it to the Tachyon Lance (which is the energy equivalent of a "sniper" weapon), I don't see the point of the Gauss Cannon. The Tachyon Lance has enough damages on its own to be a menace to frigates and destroyers while being a great anti-armor / EMP weapon against larger targets. On the other hand, the Gauss Cannon is far less accurate and cannot "snipe" fast targets (because of projectile travel time even though it has no recoil and excellent projectile velocity), its anti-armor performance is decent but far inferior to any proper anti-armor weapon and it generates lots of flux. And on top of all of that, it has so much range that you can't couple it with any ballistic HE weapon !
It needs a buff, but I don't know how to fix it. Buffing its flux efficiency won't be enough to make it appealing.
34
Mods / Re: [0.98a] NEON's Ship Pack (v3.0.0)
« on: April 17, 2025, 04:37:57 AM »
Hi.
Both the MK1 Legion and Dominator have weird names given to their armor module (ie "Vambrace Vambrace Module" or "New Variant Module").
The Saros drones have a crew requirement of 3, which I don't think they should have since they are automated ?
Both the MK1 Legion and Dominator have weird names given to their armor module (ie "Vambrace Vambrace Module" or "New Variant Module").
The Saros drones have a crew requirement of 3, which I don't think they should have since they are automated ?
35
Suggestions / Re: about Invictus
« on: April 16, 2025, 03:13:15 PM »
Since 0.98 was released, I find the Invictus to be in a good spot. Liddar Array passive giving it +35% range allows it to keep up against low tech and midline cruisers when it's on cooldown and I found the AI to not switch target as often as it used to be during it.
36
Suggestions / Re: Nerfing S-modded Expanded Magazines
« on: April 15, 2025, 09:32:59 AM »Quote
Large ballistic users in general not being able to kite with a long-ranged weapon seems to be very much intentional design.
Agreed, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a lack of destroyer sized or at least cruiser sized ships designed to mount non missile support type weapons (such as the Gauss Cannon) or to be built as support ships. It's really the same problem that the Paladin used to have before the introduction of the Anubis to the game.
Now the Anubis is its own can of worms that I'm not gonna open because it isn't the focus of this discussion. But you see what I mean : a weapon can be fine or even good, but not used by the players because it can't find a ship that properly supports it. Mind you, I know the Paladin was heavily buffed in 0.98, but it's still a rare sight on Paragons, Odysseys or Sunders.
Quote
Also, there are good ships for using Heavy Mortar. You have Falcon, Eagle and Hammerhead
I didn't forget them. Out of these 3 ships you mentionned, only the Hammerhead has a weapon layout that incite the player to consider using Heavy Mortars because even though it has several hybrid weapon mounts, in practice, it's almost a pure ballistic ship.
As for the Eagle and the Falcon, because of their weapon layouts, they both incite heavily the player to use kinetic weapons in the medium ballistic mounts and either anti-armor energy weapon or support type energy weapon. On top of that, because of how far behind their energy mounts are from their ballistic mounts, the player is further encouraged to use beams instead of anti-shield energy weapons (such as Pulse Lasers, Kinetic Blasters, Heavy Blasters, etc).
Quote
I think most charge-based weaponry with no buff is in a decent spot right now except maybe the Thumper (but is it supposed to be more than mediocre?).
The Thumper really doesn't care about Expanded Magazine. Its recharge rate is extremely generous.
37
Suggestions / Re: Re: Nerfing S-modded Expanded Magazines
« on: April 15, 2025, 07:31:14 AM »
Of all the ammo-based weapons, only the IRAL really needs S-modded Expanded Magazines to shine. All the others would be fine with a potential nerf to the S-mod bonus of Expanded Magazines.
All the weapons you listed are good. They are not used because the current roaster of ships doesn't incite the player to use them. The Heavy Mortar really needs to be installed into a hardpoint to reduce its recoil, but most destroyers and cruisers have medium turrets, hence why you don't see it much. The same goes for the Light Mortar (which is really good on the Lasher btw because it has 2 small hardpoints + AAF).
The current roaster of ships doesn't support well some weapons which are otherwise, fine. The Gauss Cannon is a prime example of this situation. The weapon isn't bad, but ships that can install it aren't designed to use it effectively except the Conquest (and Mjolnirs are better on the Conquest overall). The Gauss Cannon is a good support weapon, but ships that can mount it cost too much DP that you don't want to "waste" on a support loadout. This is why the Dominator variant with 2*Gausses is a meme : it's genuinely not bad, but you don't want a 25 DP armor brick with tons of hulls and weapons to sit back shooting only 2 weapons. Same goes for the Atlas MK.II.
But these underappreciated weapons (for good reasons in vanilla) can get a second life once you start using mods because they add ships with weapons layouts that properly support them.
Quote
just compare a weapon like Light Assault Gun, MK IX, Light Mortar or Heavy Mortar
All the weapons you listed are good. They are not used because the current roaster of ships doesn't incite the player to use them. The Heavy Mortar really needs to be installed into a hardpoint to reduce its recoil, but most destroyers and cruisers have medium turrets, hence why you don't see it much. The same goes for the Light Mortar (which is really good on the Lasher btw because it has 2 small hardpoints + AAF).
The current roaster of ships doesn't support well some weapons which are otherwise, fine. The Gauss Cannon is a prime example of this situation. The weapon isn't bad, but ships that can install it aren't designed to use it effectively except the Conquest (and Mjolnirs are better on the Conquest overall). The Gauss Cannon is a good support weapon, but ships that can mount it cost too much DP that you don't want to "waste" on a support loadout. This is why the Dominator variant with 2*Gausses is a meme : it's genuinely not bad, but you don't want a 25 DP armor brick with tons of hulls and weapons to sit back shooting only 2 weapons. Same goes for the Atlas MK.II.
But these underappreciated weapons (for good reasons in vanilla) can get a second life once you start using mods because they add ships with weapons layouts that properly support them.
38
Mods / Re: [0.98a] Industrial.Evolution 4.0.f - Campaign content expansion
« on: April 15, 2025, 02:45:07 AM »
It's Stellar Network.
39
Mods / Re: [0.98a] Industrial.Evolution 4.0.f - Campaign content expansion
« on: April 14, 2025, 09:33:04 AM »Nevermind. Found the problem. Not related to your mod.
40
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.98a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: April 13, 2025, 03:37:52 PM »
Really ? I think the Remnants got substantially stronger through the direct buffs to the Fulgent and indirect buff to the Apex (which is now a complete menace with its Terminator Drones).
41
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.98a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: April 13, 2025, 03:20:31 PM »
@ Mishrak :
So far, I've tried low tech and midline fleets with a variety of ships and I've found the Threat to be far more enjoyable to fight than the Remnants. The Remnants being faster and extremely aggressive naturally leads you more into spamming capital ships with a few escorts whereas the Threat, fielding more ships and especially destroyers but being less aggressive, allows for more fleets composition overall (although I haven't go any luck using a carrier-centric fleet against them). Cruisers for example are allowed to breathe against the Threat whereas the hyper aggressiveness of the Remnants (combined with extremely dangerous torpedoes) make them fall apart quickly unless they are fast enough to maneuver around the battlefield.
My best results were using a Retribution as a flagship in a midline fleet (2 Conquests, then Eagles with a few Champions as long-range support) with a few high tech frigates (Tempests). And as for low tech fleets, I don't know if it's me, but I find the Legion to be actually better than the Onslaught which is very weird ?
It's theoretical, but I don't see why high tech fleets might struggle against the Threat. I think high tech might be in fact the best equipped against the Threat because it has access to fast cruisers with 360° shields and lots of alpha strike damages through missiles / AMB etc. This should allow it to aggressively push against the Fabricators quickly whereas I found low tech fleets to struggle a bit at finishing them off unless you use the Eliminate command smartly or pilot a strong flagship yourself.
So far, I've tried low tech and midline fleets with a variety of ships and I've found the Threat to be far more enjoyable to fight than the Remnants. The Remnants being faster and extremely aggressive naturally leads you more into spamming capital ships with a few escorts whereas the Threat, fielding more ships and especially destroyers but being less aggressive, allows for more fleets composition overall (although I haven't go any luck using a carrier-centric fleet against them). Cruisers for example are allowed to breathe against the Threat whereas the hyper aggressiveness of the Remnants (combined with extremely dangerous torpedoes) make them fall apart quickly unless they are fast enough to maneuver around the battlefield.
My best results were using a Retribution as a flagship in a midline fleet (2 Conquests, then Eagles with a few Champions as long-range support) with a few high tech frigates (Tempests). And as for low tech fleets, I don't know if it's me, but I find the Legion to be actually better than the Onslaught which is very weird ?
It's theoretical, but I don't see why high tech fleets might struggle against the Threat. I think high tech might be in fact the best equipped against the Threat because it has access to fast cruisers with 360° shields and lots of alpha strike damages through missiles / AMB etc. This should allow it to aggressively push against the Fabricators quickly whereas I found low tech fleets to struggle a bit at finishing them off unless you use the Eliminate command smartly or pilot a strong flagship yourself.
42
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.98a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: April 08, 2025, 03:01:33 AM »The whole game would need a desperate revamp and launch on Steam that should've been done years ago, colonies, exploration, ship fitting, weapons looks so bad just hanging on the ship they should be half built in, the combat AI is still terrible. It's unfortunate that the main dev is so clueless about everything, the potential was there.
While no game is perfect, it seems that people are overall quite happy with it. I think this game isn't for you (which is fine, it's a matter of personal taste) and you should try other games. As for the Steam release, this subject comes up regularly, and Alex doesn't seem to want to do it yet, for understandable reasons (although I don't agree with some of them, but hey it's his game).
But calling the dev "clueless" is needlessly aggressive. Just as was your previous demand towards Nia Tahl.
43
Mods / Re: [0.97] Tahlan Shipworks
« on: April 07, 2025, 02:19:22 PM »Believe it or not, I got the same crash when testing compatibility. Who would've thought. It's already fixed on my end, but don't go expecting a proper update anytime soon, I'm busy with my own ***.
Just update the mod already, there was no update since half year, it's unplayable since 0.98.
Instead of being aggressive, you should instead try downloading the mod again and updating the modinfo. As explained last page, the mod was crashing since 0.98 because one weapon lacked a Primary Role description, but Alex removed this problem in the hotfix. It should work now by simply updating the modinfo yourself.
And if it doesn't work, it's very easy to do yourself by following the provided instructions last page. It will take you, at most, about 5 minutes to do.
44
Suggestions / Re: One specific [THREAT] weapon is way too hard to get
« on: April 05, 2025, 01:18:04 PM »Ahhh! Thank you for the update, ok, whew.
Glad to not give you extra work to do
Neoferric Quadcoils are still a pain to find though
45
Mods / Re: [0.98a] Secrets of the Frontier (0.14.5b) - indev campaign mod
« on: April 05, 2025, 01:16:29 PM »
Hi Inventor Racoon !
There is a bug that affects Threat battles when your mod is enabled : it is related to battle objectives.
When your mod is activated, Threat fleets with a low enough DP (example : 3 Fabricators + very small escort) will result in using smaller battle maps without objectives. For a Threat battle to use bigger battle maps with objectives, the Threat fleets need to have a high enough total amount of DP (ex : 1 Fabricator + big escort of cruisers/destroyers etc). This bug makes Threat fleets with small escorts weaker than they are supposed to be because the fleets spawn a lot closer to each other on battle maps without objectives.
This is a bug since Alex confirmed that you should always get a battle map with objectives as long as a Threat fleet has at least 1 Fabricator => https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=32225.0
I launched several playthrough and tested facing all kinds of Threat fleets with and without SotF and this bug only happens when your mid is enabled
There is a bug that affects Threat battles when your mod is enabled : it is related to battle objectives.
When your mod is activated, Threat fleets with a low enough DP (example : 3 Fabricators + very small escort) will result in using smaller battle maps without objectives. For a Threat battle to use bigger battle maps with objectives, the Threat fleets need to have a high enough total amount of DP (ex : 1 Fabricator + big escort of cruisers/destroyers etc). This bug makes Threat fleets with small escorts weaker than they are supposed to be because the fleets spawn a lot closer to each other on battle maps without objectives.
This is a bug since Alex confirmed that you should always get a battle map with objectives as long as a Threat fleet has at least 1 Fabricator => https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=32225.0
I launched several playthrough and tested facing all kinds of Threat fleets with and without SotF and this bug only happens when your mid is enabled