Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hostile Activity (09/01/22)

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 - Serenitis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89
Suggestions / Re: Allow Restore to Remove Individual D-Mods
« on: Today at 01:32:13 AM »
Iirc, the d-mods giving such a noticeable reduction to recovery costs is exactly because you have to deal with them all, or either scrap/repair the ship.

Originally I was really keen on this premise, because fixing stuff one broken thing at a time is exactly how you do it when you have no money.
It makes sense. And getting rid of stuff you don't like & keeping stuff you don't care about for the savings seems p. cool.
But playing through a few (dozen) games trying to deliberately use d-mods has given me the realisation that they don't really matter as much as some would insist.
To be honest the only d-mod worth caring about at all is "Ill Advised" which isn't random.
And being able to cherry-pick that away from the ships that have it would just make them strictly better than any other option in thier respective class.

While it would be nice to be able to pick and choose, you'd have to reduce the positive effects from d-mods to balance it.
Doing that would remove a big part of what makes d-mod fleets work - being able to use bigger & more expensive ships earlier, or just more ships in general.
And I don't think that's worth the trade off.

General Discussion / Re: Why am i profitably exporting for 0$?
« on: September 26, 2022, 11:44:08 PM »
Income is multiplied by market share, and since you have 0% share from that colony it generates no income.
When you add the guy with IP that gives you an extra product to export which pushes your share up so your income is no longer multiplied by zero, but by a small number.

The more stuff you make in the same place, the bigger the slice of the market you control, the more money you get from both selling the goods AND the higher the multiplier applied to that income.

General Discussion / Re: New/rebalanced ship variants?
« on: September 25, 2022, 10:57:00 AM »
One pirate ship I am not fond of is pirate Wolf.  It is pure downgrade (fewer mounts, nerfed system), and the 4 DP cost is not enough compensation.
They're just too fragile to not have some kind of PD for their exposed rear.
And any other variant is easy enough to find that it's never worth using the (P) version.

If Wolf had an omni shield, this would be less of an issue (and would make it a bit more survivable in general).

I would not want Industrial Planning replaced or removed from the game unless baseline commodity production is raised by one or baseline demand lowered by one across the board.
You wouldn't need to do either if you went down the expanded skills route.
Keep IP as-is for the player and alphas.
Every other admin in the game gets an array of 'lesser' skills that only boost either a single resource or a single industry.

This has the added bonus of being able to include all colony stats, and maybe some spicy tradeoffs.
Like a less than reputable skill that gives a good boost to something but takes a bite out of stability or income.
Or military/militia skills that boost fleet size/count, or defences.

Dozens of potential skills, hundreds of potential combinations.
If you really wanted, you could even include a leveling system for admins that gain them skills based on the kind of colony they're running / what buildings are present / what things are active etc.

General Discussion / Re: So there was a rant about the doritos
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:49:51 AM »
I think this depends on whether Tessaract is supposed to be faced by every player going through the story, or be a challenge reserved for players looking for one.
This is very important, as far as design decisions go.
Do you make extra-hard content mandatory, or optional?

In every game, at least half of your player base is at or below median skill level. Making hard content mandatory effectively locks those people out of anything beyond that point.
While some may argue that making hard content optional diminishes the experience.
It's basically the same argument as "should there be an easy mode?", just with a slightly different framing.

Being firmly in the lower half of the demographics, I favour permissive systems and optionality.
I've tried to mess with geometry a few times, not got anywhere, and because I don't have the interest, the patience or the time to bounce my head against a problem until a solution pops out any more, I'm content to leave them be and let other players have all the fun they like with them. It's just not for me.
If I were forced to engage with this at some point, I would likely be considerably less content.

Mora and heron are ships that I've found work a lot better for me if I ignore what I want them to be, and instead focus on what they are.
They don't play by the same rules. They're square blocks in a fleet full of triangle holes.

Incredibly subjective rambling:
Mora is definitely, 100% a battle carrier.
Its a brick and it can just sit there and ignore a lot of things.
The problem with Mora, it that its flux stats are also a brick. So putting 'good' guns on it is a waste of time, as it will just flux itself up and spend a lot of time not firing those guns - in addition to using the damper field, where it is also not using those guns.

Instead cover it in PD. A vulcan facing in every direction, a couple of machine guns on the wide front mounts and a single mortar in the narrow mount.
(Ignore the hardpoint - it is a silly thing.)
Fighters and missiles can be absolutely anything.
Stack defensive hullmods, and seriously consider unstable injector for a bit of extra speed.
With this setup there is no need for vents as weapon flux is less than base dissipation, so any left over OP can put into caps for more shield health.

Example 1 - To get in faces and just be everybody's problem:

Example 2 - To lurk afar and support from a distance:

(With all those caps, you could swap some out for campaign stuff. Or ditch the injector as its not super important in that role...)
Heron probably isn't a battle carrier.
It's too squishy. Has mediocre flux stats. And not enough OP.
But it has an absolutely bangin' ship system.

To take advantage of this is Heron's purpose.
And to do that, it needs to compromise everything else.
Fit one PD laser on each wing, and a single tac laser on the nose.
And then most importantly put a guided missile in the medium mount. Doesn't matter what, but the longer the range / the faster the better.
It's not going to be close enough to anything to use unguided / slow missiles effectively.
Heron can't handle guns. It doesn't have the flux stats to support them without spending all its OP on flux stuff. Why would you spend all your OP on trying to turn it into a mediocre combatant instead of being a good carrier?

Now, decide what you want it to do. And fit the hardest hitting fighters you can afford that do that thing. (With the caveat that guided weapons hit a lot more consistently than unguided, and can pass over friendlies.)
The only fighters to avoid are support types, as again Heron isn't going to be close enough to get much out of them and the system won't do much for thier weapons.

Sometimes the AI fluffs the system timing. So what?
It gets it right often enough to be worth taking advantage of. Can't say I've had any issues with it so far.

Example 1 - I will find a way to use Trident even if kills you repeatedly:

(You can also fit triple-dagger, but then you lose the kinetic/flare support. If you've got that covered elsewhere then stacking bombers to get more out of the system is good.)

Example 2 - The chaos engine:

General Discussion / Re: Tech-mining for Domain artifacts
« on: September 08, 2022, 12:41:28 AM »
Tech mining is incredibly capricious when it comes to output.
The size of the ruins improves the chances of getting something 'big', but doesn't guarantee it at all.
It's usually worth mining any size ruin.
And it's always worth running the mines until they say there's nothing there - I've seen tech mines pull colony items out of ruins that were almost entirely dead.

It's basically Starsector: Gacha.

General Discussion / Re: Tech-mining for Domain artifacts
« on: September 07, 2022, 07:02:45 AM »
You'll get far more from surveying and salvaging then tech-mining, ultimately.
Ultimately, this.
If you explore an entire sector you can almost guarantee you'll get a full set of items (or very close).
Tech Mining is comparatively lacklustre because on the whole it's output seems to be very very capricious, and non-interactively time consuming.

But maybe it is worth borrowing an idea from another part of the game to provide some potential shortcuts?

Domain derelicts sometimes have snippets of information that point to other derelicts.
Maybe ruins and abandoned stations could have a similar thing that points to useful items. (Possibly a specific thing, maybe just "something of value".)
That would send people to the approximate locations of things so they don't have to sweep the entire sector.

Not entirely sure how well that would mesh with the drop tables though.

Suggestions / Re: Ship restoration expanded information on flaws
« on: September 07, 2022, 01:07:03 AM »
An alternative (potentially easier) way of doing this would be to add it to the cost/confirmation box that appears.
Possibly something like:

Suggestions / Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« on: September 04, 2022, 01:08:36 PM »
"basic software functions" are decided by the developer. Or should we criticize Microsoft Excel for not having a voice synthesizer?
Saving and Loading are basic software functions, along with Starting and Exiting, and the specific purpose of the software itself.
Excel "not having a voice synthesizer" is a meaningless non sequitur since it is does not require that functionality. And no-one would ever want it as it would not add anything that would be in any way useful to its intended function.

If you want to try and cow someone with glib off-handed nonsense, pick an easier mark.

Apologies for the derail everyone else.

Suggestions / Re: Minor Cosmetics
« on: September 04, 2022, 08:57:04 AM »
Another minor cosmetic is the in-battle tactical display.
Specifically the CR and hull readouts are at the top of each ship image.
But the d/s-mods are also at the top of the image, and in many cases completely obscure the former.

Suggest either:
Moving the hull and CR bars to the bottom of the image.
Not displaying d/s-mods in the tactical map.

Slightly prefer not showing the mods since they're not particularly relevant in the tactical map and feel like clutter.

Suggestions / Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« on: September 04, 2022, 02:40:30 AM »
Well, presumably in finished state the game will be pure ironman so no reloads.
I certainly hope not.
I'd hate to have to ditch software for dictating to me when I can perform basic software functions.

General Discussion / Re: Tech-mining for Domain artifacts
« on: September 04, 2022, 02:37:32 AM »
Roads not taken:

Ditch tech mining completely. Well, as a separate entity anyway.
Any habitation on a world with ruins automatically pulls stuff from said ruins on its own. The bigger the population, the faster it works.

The ruins themselves never deplete completely, but they will eventually drop to a 'minimum' level.
Ruins can't be cleared inside the timescale the game takes place in, they're just too big.


Have the tech mining industry buildable anywhere, and instead it sends out salvage teams to untapped ruins you have discovered.
(For this purpose, consider 'untapped' to mean 'survey complete + initial quick looting'.)

The size of the team is based on the fleet size modifer.
There would be a slider or selector somewhere so the player can deliberately send smaller teams than the base is capable of producing if they prefer.

Small teams are faster, but can only carry small stuff like items and blueprints.
Large teams are slower, but can carry non-trivial quantities of anything.
Smaller teams would be more subject to rng variance since the smaller things are rarer, so its possible they might return with nothing. While the larger teams would almost always bring back something even if it might not be the most valuable.

Destination selection for salvage teams is directable to a degree.
There would be three selections for "This system", "This Constellation" and "Everywhere else", which could be set as desired to prevent salvage teams from removing things from places you might want to colonise and exploit yourself.

Suggestions / Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« on: September 04, 2022, 01:51:10 AM »
Imo 'buying' s-mods with story points is fine. It's how the system actively encourages you to do the exact same thing with them every time* which is the problem.
* build in the 'largest' mod

S-modes should be rare spice no staple food.
Then the system fails at the first hurdle, since s-mods are the direct replacement for the Loadout Design skill in previous versions, which was a 100% manadatory pick because many ships don't have enough OP to be fitted 'properly' without some kind of assistance.
Resulting in the same problem, just in a different location.

If you really really wanted to use s-mods as a credit sink, you could do that with a little thought.
To build-in a mod you'd need a Heavy Industry somewhere in your control (or access to one via a contact).
You'd need a pile of credits, and some resources - Metal, Transmetal, Machinery, Volatiles, Organics.

Every mod has it's own costs.
Armour and hull mods want lots of metal and a bit of machinery, but little else.
Complex devices would prefer machinery and organics.
Engine related stuff would prefer volatiles etc etc.

Take ship to port, pay the asked sum of credits + resources, recieve built-in mod.
The problem with this is that it's a lot more effort than just pressing a button, and soft-locks early game players out of s-mods because of the extra (and expensive) hoops that must be jumped.
Not sure this would be an improvement, but I'm fairly sure it's possible.

If I'm ever in a losing battle or in a situation where I'm forced to retreat, that's an instant reload. Because there's no way in hell I'm losing ships with s-mods.
Exactly this. I'm 100% not interested in 'playing through' a loss, especially not one as big as that.
I don't care about picking up pieces after the fact, but I am either going to win or reload + avoid.
About the whole ship orientation thing on tactical map discussion, I'm positive that would reduce the readability even more. The last thing we need is even more clutter. It's pretty obvious which ship you're looking at a glance, seeing them in all kinds of positions compared to your view would be pure chaos.
Sort of agree.
Could be accomodated in options with a "Rotate ships in tactical view" setting, so people could choose. (I don't think I'd ever use it tbh.)

Blog Posts / Re: Hostile Activity
« on: September 03, 2022, 02:17:26 PM »
So player needs to eat a -3 stability penalty, lose an industry slot, and have Open Market be the default screen instead of Storage (when viewing ships).  That is kind of lame.
If the market was a 'default', it would just exist with no other effects beyond existing. The Commerce industry would then be solely for the extra income, and the player still controls whether they build it (and suffer its effects) or not.
If Commerce was split, the structure would add the market and nothing else. No further effects. And as stated, upgrading it would turn it into the current industry.
And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make storage the default selection.

This isn't the first time I've explained this idea to you (and it probably won't be the last).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89