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 - Schwartz

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 97
31
Discussions / Re: What happened to Uomoz?
« on: April 03, 2023, 08:02:22 AM »
Uomoz's Sector was how I got started with Starsector as well, it was a great mega-modpack. He probably just got bored with it and carried on with his life. Pour one out for a fallen comrade. :'(

32
General Discussion / Re: Asking ChatGPT things about Starsector
« on: March 31, 2023, 10:37:57 AM »
Well, the only way it can give you these answers is by parsing what other people have already said about the game. So besides reddit that would be mostly from this forum. And there's the possibility of it mangling up the answers. I dunno, seems pointless to me. Holding these language models to the standard of giving you "correct" answers is well and good, but you'd have to double-check every answer.

33
Interesting thought. If it reduces supplies by 50% and adds the same amount of metal, it will be cheaper overall. If it takes more metal than the # of supplies, it will take more cargo space to repair the same amount. I don't think it would have to account for tech levels - just to use a certain amount of metals over time as dictated by the ship's repair speed. I would prefer the first option out of the two. Just make it 50% / 50% supplies/metal for repairs, and 100% supplies for CR.

This change would give you the ability to plan around your loadouts. How much damage are you expecting? And then bring the proper amounts of each. And if you run out of metal, you can still recover all CR but your hull remains pock-marked.

Yeah, this is a neat idea.

34
Discussions / Re: Dwarf Fortress sold 300k units in 6 days on steam
« on: February 04, 2023, 09:38:48 AM »
As opposed to buying DF directly from Toady, you mean? ;D

35
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: February 04, 2023, 09:31:39 AM »
Good set of fixes and lots of new stuff. Hard to guess how the new meta will arrange itself, but I would think high-tech is overall taking the lead with the sweeping weapon buffs.

The only thing that strikes me as funny is the laser-shooting missiles. Further reinforcing the "fighters are missiles" trope. ;)

36
Suggestions / Re: Disabled Ship = Escape Pods, not Boom
« on: January 23, 2023, 07:49:21 PM »
What's edgy about it? I'm looking at this purely from an interesting game mechanic standpoint.

I also don't think there's official "rules of engagement" in the StarSector universe? Hegemony may have a code regarding this, but when there's no watchful eyes, everybody could and does probably play dirty.

37
Suggestions / Re: Disabled Ship = Escape Pods, not Boom
« on: January 22, 2023, 09:52:23 PM »
Yeah, would be cool. Also let enemy ship PD target escape pods. Doesn't have to change any statistics, but this could give a tiny temporary downside to the upside of having one less enemy ship against you.

38
Suggestions / Re: Poison gameplay loop; (by design)
« on: January 18, 2023, 01:00:02 AM »
I meant the other part. That 100% does not give certain bonuses, but having skills on top of 100% gives bonuses. The decoupling of the two is what would be strange.

And it's just as intuitive to start out with smaller health bars that grow to maximum in the course of a game.

39
General Discussion / Re: I need help with GraphicsLib PLZZZ
« on: January 18, 2023, 12:57:50 AM »
You enable it like any other mod. When you extract it, the folder "GraphicsLib" needs to be in the "mods" subfolder of the game. Then select the mod in the Starsector launcher. The mod itself needs no configuration.

40
Suggestions / Re: Poison gameplay loop; (by design)
« on: January 17, 2023, 07:41:29 PM »
Just having max CR always be 100% and the skills add the high CR benefits sounds good.

Sounds convoluted. Another thing that'll need more explaining than it does now. All this to plug a theoretical hole that outside of this thread most people haven't noticed or cared about. Idk.

41
Suggestions / Re: Poison gameplay loop; (by design)
« on: January 17, 2023, 08:36:28 AM »
The idea that players will scam themselves out of all the fun has come up before. Frankly, I think that's one of those things that sounds like a neat theory but hardly anyone does it. It's true for a small subset of players who have a certain powergaming mindset, and even then savescumming again and again surely has to eventually result in a realization like "What the hell am I doing with my time?". This exploit is a good example. It's valid; it can give a player more CR if he is willing to engage in some tedious time waste before every battle.

When there's a lot of pressure through difficulty, say Dark Souls, players will discover and use way more exploitative strategies because playing the game straight is itself a painful activity. I consider having to learn every enemy pattern and then play accordingly to beat them to be close to the mind-numbing chore of Dance Dance Revolution and those kinds of games. The game says "Do it exactly like I tell you or suffer".

Starsector is not like that. The player learns its systems in a much more relaxed and general way and is not severely punished for ignorance - in most cases. The need to optimize his own fun out of the game just to be able to play the game is simply not there. Reloading to beat combat engagements (which I know are beatable) is as far as I'm personally willing to go.

42
Suggestions / Re: Poison gameplay loop; (by design)
« on: January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 AM »
Willingness to do this kind of thing is proportional to how unforgivingly hard the game actually is. Starsector is not hard. It is challenging when you pick the wrong battles or get caught in a situation you shouldn't have been caught in. Actually, as soon as you have some decent ships in your fleet, the game is quite easy and you're not liable to lose your ships even against bigger odds. Actually actually, the CR bonus for officers is still a great skill so my officered ships end up having that, too. By which point it becomes a non-issue.

So I've never done this exploit and I don't see it as a big problem for the player population either. It may be worthwhile to plug this, as long as it doesn't come with another weird and gamey explanation. Simply having ships limited to their current max CR rather than it "trickling down" would probably be fine. But really this is such an exotic (read: masochistic) exploit that I don't really see the need to go that hard.

43
1. every s-mode has  the same  OP worth 25  (when hullmode is cheaper then rest of OP is added as to thee ship budget)
2. max OP worth s-moded  hullmode is 25 (more expensive hulmode canot be s-moded; plain general rule)

(OP prices  are for capital  size, smaller ship sizes has smaller limits  accordingly)

Some interesting ideas there. It could be tried. Generally I get the feeling this change is trying to compensate for problems that are already very small. Since SS is a singleplayer game, there is always the luxury of just leaving it be and not having everything be the exact same power level as everything else. This may "feel wrong" but overbalancing tends to result in weird appendixes (as in, the bodypart) to existing systems.

I'll offer an option #3: Every story point added to a ship just increases the ship's OP by 10/15/20 whatever is the correct number for its size. That's it. No more S-Mods. With the same SP limits as before. Could also pay a single SP to add a bonus effect to one of the ship's hullmods.

44
When you hover over the Download button, you get shown a link to the installer. It shows RC6 right now, which means RC6 is the current version. Are you sure those mods aren't looking for a previous version with a high RC number? 0.95a RC15 is an old version, for example. Note the missing subversion 1.

45
Yep, and it's also kinda funny that they get penalized for costing so much OP - not necessarily because they're so powerful that they're worth their OP cost. So that thing I was suggesting as a joke - just making expensive hullmods cheaper so we wouldn't have to penalize them as S-Mods - actually applies.

To me, there are many top-tier hullmods that are roughly equally useful. Missile Racks, Hardened Shields, Heavy Armor, ITU, Hardened Subs (for frigates) just off the top of my head. And their usefulness also depends on the kind of ship they're fitted to. Are they all receiving penalties to their main functionality as S-Mods? A side-grade is the last thing I'm looking for when I spend story points. I want a bump in usability and some free OP. Although the OP increase is secondary to me not having a bad time when I want to use the ship.

Please think good and hard whether penalties have any place in a storypoint-based ship loadout "elite promotion" kind of system. I'd rather take a hit to the power level of hullmods. I'd rather see their OP costs rejuggled. I'd rather see fewer S-Mods per ship maximum than penalties. Although I think none of these measures are actually necessary in the current state of the game.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 97