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.

16

General Discussion / Re: Ship costs and availability

« on: August 23, 2019, 10:09:02 AM »

So why not a ship listing? If you don't need the money right away, you can buy cargo space and store your ship (as the game already lets you do) with the option to name a sale price. Undercutting market rates will get your ship sold faster, and vice versa.

Kinda interesting - but it would only push back the insane profit to a later date. If say you could only have one ship on the market at a time, with on average a month to sell for frigate size, longer for each size larger - maybe a balance could be found? But honestly, making money isn't really an issue between cargo/bounty runs and colonies, it's pretty easy to snowball.

17

General Discussion / Re: Six random questions from new player

« on: August 23, 2019, 09:06:23 AM »

1. With time you'll recognize ships and weapons and what they do.
2. 'a'
3. If it's a mission through the intel screen - on the right there is a button - Check Markets or something like that.
4. Early on its best not to get caught - best way to do that is make sure all your ships have at least burn 9. If you do get caught it all depend on the top speed of your ships, but losses are expected.
5. Same as 4.
6. On the fleet screen - left side middle - there is some grey text indicating whether your fleet is small enough to disengage.

18

General Discussion / Re: Ship costs and availability

« on: August 23, 2019, 08:31:45 AM »

These are military starships, not used cars.

They are Military TYPE ships, not ships owned exclusively by the military. As far a lore goes, anyone with the blueprint can build them. After 206 cycles, 6 warring factions, and billions of private citizens, and Pirates, I'm under the belief that yes, anyone can own one and the 'military' wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Also yes, they are very much like used cars. Traded, repaired, sold, recovered, stolen, modified, etc. The very definition of used car.

Salvaging a ship and repairing it (not restoring, just repairing), then selling it should net you some profit.

As for salvaging, imagine for a second it was profitable (I'm pretty sure it was at one point) - in an average game session, how many ships do you destroy? 10,100, 1000? Even if you got half the listed price we're talking 10's if not 100's of million in profit. In a game dedicated to blowing up ships, I can't think of a way to make salvaging profitable without breaking the balance completely. Doesn't mean there isn't a way, but I haven't seen your suggestion on how to make it work.

19

Suggestions / Re: Consistent mission offerings instead of player-centric ones

« on: August 22, 2019, 12:17:31 PM »

Missions of appropriate difficulty would be available no matter what.

This needs to happen. I can only do system bounties for so long before I want to pull my hair out. As xenoargh pointed out, sometimes RNG will only give 'easy' missions, what they didn't mention is that it works both ways, and in my experience its far more common that all the missions will be too 'hard' - leaving me chasing blips for system bounties.

It would improve realism. Game worlds don't feel real when they tailor themselves to the player's circumstances.

Indeed. I always feel like I'm on the clock to get my fleet up to size, because I know sooner rather than later bounties will be out of my reach if I don't.

It would encourage more fleet re-composition, which is an emergent mission objective that can involve a lot of interesting decisions.

As well as the fact that there are days when I just don't feel like/don't have the time for large fleet battles.

It would facilitate clear expectations about how much a type of mission can vary in difficulty and profitability. Consider a player who does a few deliveries at the beginning of the game, but stops, leading them to believe that such missions are only meant to provide chump-change at the beginning of a game.

If missions can, in anyway, expose players to new ideas/concepts/mechanics/ships then I'm all for it. A mission - even if I couldn't do it at the time, has the opportunity to teach me something about the game.

20

General Discussion / Re: "Balanced" expeditions

« on: August 19, 2019, 09:30:35 AM »

My industries are farming and mining, no heavy industries and I have a patrol station and an orbital station, I am using one gamma core and it's on my patrol station iirc. I feel like none of that is too crazy to warrant such a massive fleet.

You're right, that doesn't sound like to much, and sorry for making assumptions. With that said, let's look at some possible issues.

Mining attracts expeditions.
AI Cores attract expeditions.
You don't have/don't know money can bribe them.
You don't have/don't know reputation can bribe them.
Your orbital probably isn't strong enough. (Tier < 3)
Your patrols probably aren't strong enough. (Tier 1)
Your fleet is to small / ill-equipped.
Your fleet doesn't have enough officers / has poor officers / has aggressive officers.
Your colony has poor stability (Stability affects patrol ship strength)

All or part of this can make starting a colony early a real pain. Keep in mind, you don't have to start any industries, and given a decent world, just the basic structures can produce a profit.

21

General Discussion / Re: "Balanced" expeditions

« on: August 19, 2019, 08:37:46 AM »

Or, you know, don't build a colony your first year and pack it with AI cores. Probably don't have an orbital or military base and went straight to heavy industries.

Yes, it is Alex's fault for assuming people would figure out that starting a colony has consequences, starting one early even more so. There should probably be a level 50 requirement to found a colony, heavy industries should require a tier 3 orbital, and using AI cores should require a Patrol HQ or Ground Defenses.

22

General Discussion / Re: Hyperspace Storms: Unfun or Necessary?

« on: August 18, 2019, 10:51:23 AM »

Starsector\starsector-core\data\config\settings.json

"minTerrainEffectMult":0,
"standardBurnPenaltyMult":0

After 100 hours following "Space Lanes" I figured my time was more valuable than this particular game mechanic, those settings make travelling long distances eminently more enjoyable while keeping the storms somewhat still interesting/dangerous.

23

Suggestions / Selecting ships ('r') under a cloud of fighters is harder than it should be.

« on: August 18, 2019, 10:29:07 AM »

Make fighters a lower selection priority then other ships?

24

General Discussion / Re: Does the ship cap affect ship recovery rates?

« on: August 06, 2019, 10:52:40 AM »

Just wanted to note that in the next release, it won't affect the ships that are available for recovery, but you will only be able to select ships up to your maximum total in the fleet. E.G. if you're at 28 ships, you'd only be able to select 2 for recovery, but there might be 10 available to choose from.

Without the ability to scuttle ships before/during the ship recovery phase, this seems like it will cause more frustration. Do you cripple your fleet on the off chance you might recover a ship you want, how many 'slots' do you reserve while you prey to RNGesus? 1,5,10?

Since you can't 'make bank' selling ships, why not just have any ship recovered that's over the cap, permanently mothballed until the user has a chance to sort out their fleet?

Or maybe a new D-mod "Gutted - Everything, including the kitchen sink, was jettisoned to allow the frame to be towed back to port, making its prospects of flying again a very costly affair"

Just my thoughts, which are worth, on average, 2 cents.

25

General Discussion / Re: New to StarSector - I need help

« on: August 06, 2019, 09:32:28 AM »

I don't know if OP is still around to care, but I made a video playing through the tutorial. Hopefully someone finds it helpful.

I'm not sure whats going on with your link - but I can't see it in the post, but I do see it when I quote you! I think putting the url where your supposed to just put some text is the issue:

Code

[url=(link here)](text here)[/url]

26

Suggestions / Re: [0.9a] Inimical / Habitable Planetary Conditions on Same Planet

« on: March 12, 2019, 08:54:44 AM »

I agree, both can be on the same planet, I just think the word 'unprotected' should be removed from the Habitable description. Habitable could then mean: In a dome, in a hazmat suit, with a breathing apprentice, or shorts and a t-shirt 

27

Suggestions / [0.9a] Inimical / Habitable Planetary Conditions on Same Planet

« on: March 11, 2019, 05:47:34 PM »

Mentioned here but seemed to miss that it's the descriptions of each that contradict each other:

Inimical
...is deadly to unprotected humans...

Habitable
...can survive unprotected...

28

Bug Reports & Support / Re: [0.9a] Custom produced ships don't use proper faction prefix.

« on: March 11, 2019, 09:50:43 AM »

  0 for 2 in reporting new issues. Can't say that's a bad thing though!

I'll sneak a request here: When creating your first colony, your fleet gets the proper prefix too!

29

Bug Reports & Support / [0.9a] Custom produced ships don't use proper faction prefix.

« on: March 11, 2019, 09:37:57 AM »

Image to explain


[attachment deleted by admin]

30

Mods / Re: [0.9a] Automatic Orders

« on: March 07, 2019, 08:54:07 AM »

First let me say I didn't realize 'Control+Click' was a thing I can get what I want now without you changing anything!

And thanks to TimeDiver, and little testing, I found removing the uiTag column contents gave the desired results with the first row of buttons being the 'overall' category (Everything, Automatic Orders, Common) and the rest of the buttons being a more specific 'type' - and I don't think Automatic Orders needed to be there. So all good now!

Thanks again for a real time and life saver!