Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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.

Messages - ChaseBears

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31
Blog Posts / Re: Skills and Story Points
« on: August 02, 2019, 07:13:59 PM »
generally in favor of these changes, but not a fan of the scaling limits on fleet bonuses.  Monofleeting should be discouraged by the combat mechanics, not by artificial caps in the skill system.

Fighter bay scaling specifically also penalizes Talon (or w/e) spam in favor of elite high tech fighters.  Also penalized for having converted hangars on your noncombat ships (why should they matter for this?).

If you want to limit the scalability of fleet bonuses then have them apply double to Officers or something.  That way the ships you assign officers to reflects your fleets focus without unduly penalizing someone who just loves missiles or fighters or w/e.

32
General Discussion / Re: War on Vanilla
« on: June 02, 2019, 11:23:16 AM »
i can never justify warthogs, their inability to keep up makes them overspecialized in my view.

33
General Discussion / Re: Starpoint Gemini Warlords vs StarSector
« on: June 02, 2019, 11:14:22 AM »
All the starpoint gemini games have been disappointments thus far and warlords continued the trend. Cannot recommend.  If Starsector is your jam then a game like spgW will feel empty, imo.

Rebel Galaxy at least has some depth in its combat mechanics.

Avorion has a bunch of issues but it is a better choice than any iteration of SPG.

34
General Discussion / Re: Alternate Skill Tree (Constellation)
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:45:17 AM »
Interdasting.

I cannot say I'm too fond of the current system, mostly because of all the wasted points. You use 12 points just for unlocking and all those 12 points do nothing.

My own personal suggestion would be something like this:

Aptitude points are not assigned, they are simply a sum of all the points spent in a tree. This means a player has more points that go into functional skills and thus, leveling can be slowed down (it really needs to be slowed down IMHO, especially early on).

Also, with aptitudes being able to have much higher "levels", one can play around with unlocks differently. A skill might require total of Combat Aptitude 8 (meaning you had to take 8 other combat skills), rather than being limited to climbing up a 3-point in a skill.
for example, that +1 Burn? Instead of it being only available if you taken he 2 previous skills (which you might not even want) instead it might be available if you spent 6 point in tech total, regardless of which tech skills you've taken.  But this means that all skills would be broken up individually - you can take Helmsmanship 3 skill without taking 1 or 2, but you still have to spend point on X combat skills before that. Obviously, he mockup doesn't cover that scenario

Was thinking the exact same thing when playing this game on vacation.  This way the aptitude box actually registers your characters apparent specializations, which makes a lot more sense than just as a blocker. 

The blockers are particularly bad since  they are going to disproportionately come out of your early skill points.  The most interesting and useful skills generally come at the third rank so you have to blow skill points on blockers to get them.

35
General Discussion / Re: Why Colonies?
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:31:17 AM »
But then it does become a 4x game.  Right now you can take things at your own pace, and play iron man if you want to, and it doesnt disadvantage you. If you're competing for habitable worlds after a few months then you should savescum everything or you fall behind.

I agree that the ease of the players colonization feels odd.  It detracts from core gameplay by making all the factions feel artificially stupid.  It also lessens payoffs.  If it were a long and difficult road to making a large and profitable faction the payoff would be all the better when you got there.   

I guess exploration in general is kinda OP and that plays into the player colony strength. The fuel artifact makes the Sindrian Diktat a power player in the sector but with some luck you can get multiple of them in a single expedition.  If you don't have a Pristine Nanoforge by the time you are building stuff you are doing it wrong.  And so on and so forth.

P.s.  also noting that the accessibility mechanic is essentially broken since its relatively easy for a player to stack a bunch of flat accessibility bonuses, so the mechanic just always favors the player.


36
General Discussion / Re: War on Vanilla
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:17:49 AM »
In theory, phase ships are submarines: they utilize the phase cloak to close to an advantageous position and unleash a lot of burst damage, then phase out before the enemy can meaningfully retaliate.  However, they are weak to fast vessels harassing them and not letting them have a break.  I feel the fundamental problem with Mine Strike is that it subverts this.

With Mine Strike, the Doom does not need to maneuver to an advantageous position. Coming remotely near an enemy is sufficient to deliver a deadly barrage. Mine Strike is also deadly to light vessels, especially fighters;  nominal counters to phase vessels are bait to it.  Furthermore it can be used while being impossible to retaliate against, which is another subversion of the phase vessel role. 


37
Lol Salvage Gantry users...

You use not Salvage Gantrys, but 6 or 8 Shepherds for it. Or Katrina or others small Salvage Gantry ships... to this you take a one or two tankers, one or two militarised Collosus and Voila. You have fleet to reach everywhere.

Few ships for battle to fend off smaller fleets of Remnants or other *** and you have everything you need.
there's a stacking penalty, 8 shepherds is pointless in terms of the gantry.  A few shepherds + 1 gantry is a good combo though.


38
it would be an expedition trying to profit from salvaging as a playstyle, as opposed to rares looting (blueprints, synch cores, etc.) which any fleet loots about equally.

39
General Discussion / Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« on: January 10, 2019, 08:15:14 PM »
drams are just straight up better than phaetons

theyre better armed and much faster with the same efficiencies and more OP budget


also really have a hard time justifying destroyer freighters

shepherds are decent in every way, and then i go straight for the Colossus which carries 3x as much as a destroyer

40
Suggestions / Re: Increase planetary stocks
« on: December 25, 2018, 05:22:56 AM »
Starsectors system deliberately excludes A->B->C->A trading as a player activity.  That's the point of tariffs.  There's been lots of space sandbox games with that sort of trading and that experience has been without exception a boring mindless money grind.  An actually good Trucker Game still engages the player.

 I guess large colonies could use access to larger stockpiles for someone who wants to use lots of freighters, but... the more is around, the less sense it makes that you are managing to Buy Low Sell High.  As was mentioned, industries dont just run at full blast.  Producers do not want to produce so much they have to dump their excess on the market for cheap.

 Ideally Super Trading would involve a difference in kind.   The delivery missions seem to scale up to your fleet a bit at least.

41
Blog Posts / Re: Pirate Bases, Raids, and Objectives
« on: August 12, 2018, 09:26:00 PM »
just chiming in to say it sounds like these mechanics would be directly transferable to major factions. just rename it to a 'staging base' and change the impact on the target system.  A faction invasion could potentially be exponentially more dangerous to a player colony... and could serve as objectives in inter-faction conflicts, both for the player to attack and maybe even defend.

42
Blog Posts / Re: Economy & Outposts
« on: October 08, 2017, 05:10:13 AM »
late to the ball game here, but intrigued by the blog post having only just now read it. i like the simplification.

i am tbh not entirely certain of the purpose of shipping capacity, other than insuring there are markets with permanently unsatisfied import requirements; it seems like a stat that only matters if its modified by an event to create temporary shortages?

the topic of how to permanently effect markets and create interesting economic interactions concerned me most; temporary measures obviously wont do when one wants to create a permanent outpost. And you don't really want destroying actual markets to be something the player is engaged in, at least not as a casual thing.  The only solution I came up with was feeder outposts and way stations used by the AI.  The outposts would function as feeders to another market and not as markets of their own; for example, an asteroid mining facility or a hydrogen fuel-scoop that supplies a nearby market, increasing its production.  These would be interactable and destroyable, possibly even the subject of faction missions.  Destroying one (or otherwise neutralizing it, like with a hireable spy, skill interaction, or ancient AI virus you found in the boonies) would decrease production and cause a temporary stability hit.  Feeder outposts could even be semi-randomized, causing economic variations between gamestarts.  NPC Waystations would work similarly, providing connections between markets but able to be sabotaged or destroyed to cause economic chaos.

Now that I think about it, one great advantage of npc waystations would also thematic; the gradual destruction of trade infrastructure and the economic consequences thereby seems central to Starsector lore.

43
its a clever idea... but i think the problems with npc interaction, super fast merchant convoys, instantly-lost rear chases, enemies appearing very suddenly compared to sensor ranges et cetera, would be simply intractable.

The game is designed around the 6-10 burn speeds. Time acceleration is the solution for long range travel - you can drop out of it immediately, so it has nil impact on things.   But its insufficient for exploration; now we have sustained burn, and it has just introduced a whole host of problems. 

i think we would be better off with super time acceleration.


44
Mods / Re: [0.8a] Star Wars: Revived - WIP: Development topic
« on: May 04, 2017, 11:59:45 AM »
Personally, i would go for more movie-accuracy than wookiepedia-accuracy - the number of weapons was limited to what made a sufficient number of pew pew lasers on the screen xD

45
General Discussion / Re: Independent suddenly go hostile?
« on: May 03, 2017, 09:02:44 PM »
most games like this you cant avoid the consequences of your actions.  it becomes too easy for the player.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15