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.

61

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

« on: December 22, 2022, 11:30:06 PM »

Simple way to buff the pulse laser without actually changing any of the values (because it doesn't need changing, it's flux-efficient and an energy projectile weapon.. it has enough perks): Halve the fire rate, double the damage/flux cost per shot. Or reduce fire rate by x0,66, up damage/flux by x1,33. Something like that.

62

General Discussion / Re: The problem with the Radiant

« on: December 05, 2022, 12:03:41 PM »

The Radiant is great. It's a good challenge but can be dealt with in various ways still. Phase ships, even phase frigates, piloted by a capable player will deal with them. Conquest can deal with it okay, but it's a glass cannon and Radiants have loadouts that could challenge the Conquest at range or pressure it into close combat and then it's easy to lose your ship. Paragon is a safer bet, though so slow that it's better to only deploy Paragons for challenging Radiant fleets and leave the smaller stuff out of it.

I would say the only thing broken about the Radiant is that the player can put one in his fleet.

63

General Discussion / Re: Question about adminstration.

« on: November 28, 2022, 05:18:17 AM »

I think it was a natural progress there. It started as just a neat combat simulator - I always offer the comparison to Mount & Blade, which started the same way and then the devs slapped a strategy/RPG system on top of it.

As far as additions go, Starsector is by far the more polished of the two. Everything fits together well, just that there's a couple of design choices that we can critique.

I think the 3 admin limit is just something that has not been 'updated' yet. Almost everyone is using AI Cores and they're clearly the superior choice, but 1) we may see more downsides to using them in future releases and 2) I do expect the human limit to be raised too. 3 colonies is the sweet spot to more-or-less become self-sufficient. One metal planet, one organics planet, one volatile planet. So 3 admins doesn't strike me as an arbitrary number. But the player gets visits from just using AI Cores in industries, so there's no downside to using them everywhere.

Indeed, it could be a fun idea to also introduce a new kind of officer that does the same as AI Cores in Industry slots do, just weaker or juggling some up- and downsides. It's not really any more micromanagement than switching out AI Cores in these slots, but could add some variety.

64

General Discussion / Re: Attacking a heavily defended base (looking for the best approach)

« on: November 27, 2022, 04:46:35 PM »

You can take over a comms/nav point which usually prompts several fleets to burn towards the point and patrol there for a little while. In that time, double back and attack. Just leave the transponder off. Don't 'go dark' unless you need to, or you'll be too slow to get anything done.

You must be using Nexerelin or something. Can't comment on those other options.

65

Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic

« on: November 25, 2022, 05:26:34 AM »

I think this is mostly going to be good for hybrid ships like Odyssee or Venture, where you can outsource PD to a few wings of cheap fighters. Spending for Converted Hangar AND DTT AND fighters just so they can do PD duty - is PD really an issue for the line cruisers?

66

Suggestions / Re: Militarized sub system needs a rework.

« on: November 24, 2022, 07:22:50 AM »

You can get around this by using Aug Drive Field and Insulated Engine instead. There's also the Survey hullmod and Efficiency Overhaul. More Logistics hullmods than you can fit, so Militarized Subsystems are a choice, not a requirement. The only thing you can't fix 100% is the sensor stats, Insulated Engine only accounts for half of it. I can see why it's a bother to have these cut into DP, but it makes sense why it's like this.

On the flipside, does Venture without Militarized hullmod count toward skill DP limits? Because that's actually a competent combat ship. By current logic, it should not.

I agree that this should be more concise, but a solution is not immediately obvious. Making a crowbar separation between combat-capable and fully logistics ships is not so easy (Tarsus? Prometheus?). Maybe skills working with DP should just account for the whole fleet and then be scaled up a bit. Since there's seldom fleets without any logistics ships.

67

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Odd massive loss of performance

« on: November 24, 2022, 01:36:59 AM »

Weird issues could crop up and it's basically a no-warranty situation. In practice it's always worked fine for me (but might not).

68

Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic

« on: November 24, 2022, 01:34:20 AM »

Yep, I may have oversold how cheap Apogee is (18 OP is not crazy low and it lost some shield efficiency recently), but its downsides almost completely disappear in fleet combat, whereas Falcon feels like fodder by comparison.

The two line-cruisers *should* be really nice. In practice I think the thing most hurting them is that medium ballistics & medium energy don't synergize well. You either get piddly beams that, when paired with kinetics pale by comparison and paired with explosives are too slow to ramp flux. Or you get energy damage dealers with about 1/2 the range of your ballistics, so they're half a sniper and half a brawler. Ion Beams never feel worthwhile to use. Brawly ballistics and mobility could be a fun option. I haven't used these two ships much. Except for Falcon (P) which is heaps fun in the early game.

69

Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic

« on: November 23, 2022, 12:34:13 AM »

Just tried it in the simulator.. Apogee has no problem taking apart an Eagle.

Now, custom vs custom loadout may be a different matter.

Paper armor won't matter if the shield stays up. Speed is a non-issue for big fleet engagements. Crunch time happens in a flux battle vs. another cruiser or two.

70

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Odd massive loss of performance

« on: November 22, 2022, 11:04:04 PM »

I even used other JRE versions (think it was 8) and had no problem with it, though it was explicitly not recommended. The only thing that won't work is the big jump to recent OpenJDK versions, but that goes for a lot of classic-JRE bundled games.

71

Suggestions / Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic

« on: November 22, 2022, 11:00:57 PM »

Also, this may play into why Eagle and Falcon are so uninteresting: Apogee is a bunch of OP too cheap still. It tanks better than any Cruiser, is the cheapest and can mount a Plasma Cannon. Logic?

72

Discussions / Re: How do i train myself to stop saving instead of loading?

« on: November 21, 2022, 07:23:00 AM »

Clearly, we learn by suffering.

F5 & F9 are not unique to Starsector, lots of games use them. Better to get used to it rather than changing it, imo.

73

Bug Reports & Support / Re: RTX 3060 TI - Ryzen 5 3600x performance

« on: November 19, 2022, 10:18:07 PM »

Locking FPS to 30 is the behavior of adaptive vsync when it can't keep up with 60.

I recommend you try borderless windowed and turn vsync off, setting FPS to 60 instead. It should still do vsync through Windows, but give you more frames. At least it did for me.

74

Suggestions / Re: New Player Experience SUCKS

« on: November 16, 2022, 08:41:57 AM »

The thing with the tutorial is that it's both on-rails (you can mess that up) and covering things that are just plain not easy, like sneaking around and kiting (you can mess that up, too). Afterwards there's ample opportunity to drive your fleet nowhere good and either get killed or supply-starved there. Logistical planning is integral to how you play the game, that's why we get fuel estimates on the map. You have to hustle at the start of the game.

Even as a veteran, I messed up the tutorial before. Force-repairing your salvage instead of getting free repairs through dialogue. Forgetting to bring crew or not hitting "suspend" before you're dry. Getting in between the two guard fleets with a fleet that can't handle them. Plenty of things to go wrong. So it's not "Baby's first tutorial" like so many games do, but I consider that a positive.

Going into a core system and getting nuked by a big fleet is kind of a rarity if you're not hostile to the system faction. It can happen when there's a pirate raid there, but then you get told beforehand via Intel. You can go dark and sneak in, have a look around first. A lot of grief can be avoided and it's often down to the player acting care-free when he should have paused and taken a moment to consider things.

75

General Discussion / Re: How to build Doom correctly?

« on: November 16, 2022, 08:23:59 AM »

Even with the Phase Speed mod, Doom is too slow to get behind anything. Use phase situationally and stick to regular-space for approach and combat as long as incoming fire is light.

I do 4x AC or Dual AC, 2x Annihilator, 2x Pulse Laser, Burst PD. Armor hullmods, Solar Shielding, EMP Resist, Missile Ammo etc.