Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

46

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 08, 2023, 03:31:02 AM »

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.

47

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 07, 2023, 05:54:56 AM »

S-Mods may have been a spontaneous addition, but they also almost entirely replaced the OP bonuses that we used to get through player fleet skills before. As such they were a required addition to give the player some breathing room in loadouts, and any tinkering with them will impact the power of the player fleet - not so much that of enemy fleets. Player fleet power is already reduced vs. previous game versions. I am not against nerfs - but I am against nerfs to player enjoyment where the gain to me is not immediately obvious. "Less fun but more flavor" is not a gain, to me. And as someone who likes to use high-ammo missiles like Locusts and Annihilators the most, and uses them in conjunction with ammo bonuses so they can last through or close to your average big fleet engagement, this S-Mod malus lands exactly in a spot where I wouldn't want it to land.

It's not a "well, now that this S-Mod is worse you can spend your OP elsewhere so why cry", it's a devaluing of a hullmod that did not need it. Here's another quick take: Make Extended Missile Racks just cost less OP and remove the S-Mod nerf.

Do I think it should cost less OP? No, it's fine where it is. This is just a silly take on "Everyone S-Mods this because of its OP cost".

48

General Discussion / Re: Help from Devteam

« on: January 07, 2023, 02:18:21 AM »

Es kommt halt mit jeder Version einiges an Text dazu. Für die aktuelle Version wird das wohl eher schlecht funktionieren, selbst wenn man die Mod zum laufen bringt. Der Modmacher sagte ja selbst, dass die Mod auch für 0.9.1 nicht als Final angesehen werden kann.

Ich würde die Mod entfernen und auf Englisch spielen, bis sich jemand des Themas annimmt. Wir haben hier ein paar deutsche Modder, aber eine Übersetzung ist halt reine Fleißarbeit und Mods entstehen meistens weil derjenige auch Bock drauf hat. Wenn Mortrag es macht wäre das natürlich cool.

49

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Very low FPS

« on: January 06, 2023, 09:40:49 AM »

Cool, glad that worked. You'll get better FPS in Minecraft too now.

50

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 06, 2023, 09:23:01 AM »

Also, no we don't just S-Mod the most expensive hullmods. Adding Heavy Armor to a high-tech ship just because it's an expensive hullmod is a total waste, just as adding Missile Racks to a Paragon is bordering on silly. Even for a Dominator the choice is not so clear-cut, because the Armor hullmods come in a bunch (Armor, EMP resist, Armored Mounts.. possibly Thrusters). It depends on the role. For a brawling Domi I'd just slap Annihilators on there and possibly make the S-Mods more about mobility and survivability. A RoF nerf would certainly not make me want to use Missile Racks at all.

That buff to frigate damage sounds pretty big too; if I'd heard about it I'd have an opinion, but I don't follow Twitter stuff. 

51

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Very low FPS

« on: January 06, 2023, 07:57:11 AM »

Is your graphics driver older than Oct 2022? AMD fixed their OpenGL to a good degree with that driver version so the game should run better from then on. You can get version 22.11.2 WHQL here. Make sure to "clean install".

Yes, LWJGL and AMD OpenGL do not play nicely together but with the latest driver it's very playable.

Also, if you run GraphicsLib, you can try going into GRAPHICS_OPTIONS.ini in the mod folder and setting  "enableShaders":false, to get some more FPS.

52

General Discussion / Re: Power limit to ships.

« on: January 06, 2023, 07:49:48 AM »

Also, don't forget that there are consequences: Your flux bar is now full. There's no free lunch. In a 1v1 these 5 AM blasters could probably snipe your opponent dead no problem, but in larger engagements the glass cannon playstyle is risky. If you're a hightech ship, your shields are now useless and if you're a phase ship, you can't phase. These are the ships that conceivably get 5 AM blasters.

Edit: Actually, if you have good Flux stats you can phase and bleed off the soft flux from the weapons. My bad.

There's a reason why in a vanilla game 2 dual AC & 2 LAG is a much more solid layout for Afflictors than trying to fit energy.

53

General Discussion / Re: I don't like the idea of build-in hull mods debuffs

« on: January 06, 2023, 07:44:19 AM »

EDIT: It's paradoxical when developers try to fight min maxing by adding another mechanic which will get, wait for it, min maxed as well.

I think fringe min-maxing should simply not be nerfed out of the game at all, as it hurts people who play normally as well. It's a singleplayer game and there is no pressure to keep everything perfectly even keel.

When officers were new, they were way OP and produced crazy maneuverability and other buffs on their ships. We also had plenty of OP and other stat bonuses in the skill tree. This was overpowered but fun. Arguably it became frustrating when trying to take out certain ship/officer enemy combos.

Now the power ceiling is way, way lower and still we're getting nerfs to the S-Mod system, even though it is itself a lower-power replacement of the previous bonus system. I don't see why it needs this nerf and I'll probably try to mod it out of my game if it happens. I don't need my Annihilator racks to fire at half RoF and make it impossible to actually empty themselves over the course of an engagement.

54

General Discussion / Re: Power limit to ships.

« on: January 05, 2023, 09:41:16 AM »

Ordnance touches on it, moreso the two Flux stats. The only thing that we don't have is a "Maximum Flux/s Gain" which would limit stacking power hungry weapons. It would remove massive burst by Phase Lance, but there's still massive burst by Torpedo for example. So it's a selective nerf to energy weapons which IMO don't need a nerf. The whole point of Energy weapons is that they use Flux much moreso than Ballistics - which is a downside as it shares a Flux bar with shields. Doubling down on the downside by imposing a limit is silly.

I'd rather see AI recognize burst potential and switching to a more cautious ranged stance when facing it, or try to keep its flux lower.

55

Discussions / Re: Games for bookworms?

« on: January 04, 2023, 08:32:39 AM »

If you're into roleplaying, Planescape: Torment has great writing. Baldur's Gate series also, to a lesser degree. Oh, duh!

King of Dragon Pass.

56

General Discussion / Re: Favorites

« on: January 03, 2023, 08:02:53 AM »

Altogether including style and guns and so on... probably Blackrock, or Dassault-Mikoyan. Depends on whether I'm feeling happy or sad that day (color scheme ). They both have a thing going where their weapons are slightly above baseline but specialized. Plus very polished designs.

Just base game, probably Tri-Tachyon. Not because I empathize with corporate fascism but all their goodies are gooder than the other faction's. The "Hope they make it" vote goes to Hegemony though.

57

Discussions / Re: Dwarf Fortress sold 300k units in 6 days on steam

« on: January 03, 2023, 07:59:12 AM »

Starsector, Minecraft, Project Zomboid, Rise to Ruins, Slay the Spire, Space Haven... and that's just what I have installed. 

58

Discussions / Re: Dwarf Fortress sold 300k units in 6 days on steam

« on: January 02, 2023, 04:44:22 AM »

That guy can't have been very much into the indie gaming scene. There's lots.

59

Discussions / Re: Dwarf Fortress sold 300k units in 6 days on steam

« on: December 23, 2022, 12:52:58 PM »

Now that we're relatively close to release, it would be silly IMO to release Starsector on Steam prematurely. You're (still) looking at lengthy wait times between major versions, which is bound to *** people off. Yes, it's very polished but is an early release worth the downvotes of all the people who don't know this game's developmental mindset?

Yes, it should absolutely be on Steam, but doing it prematurely is likely a move that burns some potential unnecessarily.

Virtually everybody knows what Dwarf Fortress is about. Its prohibitive UI and general depth are legendary stuff of memes and there are no misunderstandings what you're getting into. Starsector is an underdog. It has not made it into the collective gamer mind in the same way. Although people who are seriously into PC gaming, such as a lot of streamers, know about it.

It's one of those "quick cash now" vs "more cash later" situations. Where it's not just cash but about customer feedback & satisfaction also.

60

Suggestions / Re: Give the pulse laser a bonus vs shields

« on: December 23, 2022, 12:23:38 PM »

Sorry FooF, I was being lazy and didn't read every single post. We just had the same great idea.

Yes, Pulse Laser doesn't have to be great at armor-cracking. Giving it stronger damage with lower RoF still would not make it amazing vs. armor. The difference between 100 and 150 is pretty much piddly. It would make it a good deal better vs. frigates and light destroyers though - which the Phase Lance also obliterates thanks to its extreme burst that the AI cannot deal with nor properly anticipate. I never felt Pulse Laser was weak. In fact, for the longest time I thought Phase Lance needed the buff more because it lacks the flux efficiency. But thanks to how AI does (not) handle it, Phase Lance actually excels whereas PL is just the definition of average. It's still one of the best energy weapons up to that size for winning flux battles vs. shields. If it loses that crown in the next version, it would deserve something extra, yes.