Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

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 - IDCS

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Mod for removing environment leveling
« on: November 30, 2019, 09:44:46 AM »
Just FYI, a few things get a bit stronger with time (notably, pirates), but nothing levels up based on your level. The bounties get stronger as you complete more bounties.

That's the exact same thing I am talking about, based on level or time is virtually the same thing. I want an option for enemy difficulty to be based on what I am doing in a playthrough instead of how far I am in a playthrough. Same idea applies for bounties regardless of the low level mechanics.

2
General Discussion / Re: Mod for removing environment leveling
« on: November 29, 2019, 04:08:20 PM »
I did a few playthroughs, but ended up abandoning them since getting a few capitals, setting up some colonies etc. all ended up with everything else leveling up exponentially to match me. That's not the kind of challenge I want so that's why I'd rather disable enemy leveling and instead have a level pyramid of enemies at all times e.g. for every 20 50k level bounty fleet 5 100k level and 1k level etc.

3
General Discussion / Mod for removing environment leveling
« on: November 23, 2019, 08:41:11 PM »
By environment leveling I mean the bounties, encounters etc. scaling up as I level

I am trying to find something that would instead buff costs for big stuff like obtaining higher end ships and weapons, colony costs and incomes after development etc. upfront while leaving the game world itself static. So I would be able to play as a small time bounty hunter scraping by for as long as I wanted, or if I wanted to scale up, I would not still be dealing with pirates or bounties now with 10 capital ship armadas but would take on large contract works, colonize somewhere etc.

Does such a mod exist?

4
Suggestions / Re: Mid-game (early-mid?) length
« on: August 25, 2019, 03:34:16 PM »
There should be no scaling at all, from the beginning to the end there should be small medium and large bounties and the same in terms of faction fleet composition.

Definitely agreed. Would rather be given the choice on what enemies I want to pick and fight with instead of being forced to progress in a certain way so that the campaign feels 'the same' for longer

5
Suggestions / Re: Mid-game (early-mid?) length
« on: August 24, 2019, 12:47:36 PM »
In my own playing experience and from observing others, its the blueprints, Nanoforges, Synchrotron Cores (and AI cores) with which one can easily earn an everything annihilating fleet withing just a few hours of game time.

If one rushes those then yeah, it is easy to stay stronger than anything you can encounter. But if one messes around for a few hours first before trying that, trying out mining and farming colonies, commissions, trading etc. it becomes much harder.

6
Suggestions / Re: Mid-game (early-mid?) length
« on: August 24, 2019, 11:27:21 AM »
Also going from the M&B Warband quote, another part of what made progression seem natural in Warband was the game world did not railroad the player into growing at such a massive pace. It was fine to get defeated, lose everything, start all over again because the world did not get overtly hostile at the player in an artificial way like it happens with the bounty scaling or expeditions or pirate revenge fleets and armadas appearing everywhere.

The world did not grow at a pre-defined pace and ruin a play for not keeping up the right way which is just cheesing it. Player could stay a small-time mercenary or raider as long as they wished. Or they could take risks after a certain point and see if paid off. If not, try again. As opposed to missing that window of opportunity to get some battlecruisers meaning a miserable campaign for the rest of it.

7
Suggestions / Re: Mid-game (early-mid?) length
« on: August 24, 2019, 11:15:59 AM »
With ships and colonies more expensive in 0.9.1a, while scaling has not been touched, it is easy for the player to fall behind.  I need to use cheese (like edge-camping, Reaper Afflictor abuse) to win those lopsided fights.  I think 0.9.1a is the first release where normal scaling (from bounty kills) is too fast, due to increased expenses to prolong the early and mid game.

Similarly, game shoves ten capital spam death fleets at player, while peak performance remained the same at 0.6a when the biggest endgame fleet at the time with HSDF or lone 200k bounty equivalent.  PPT was to stop endless kiting (back when enemy AI was aggressive and rarely kited at the time, instead of playing coward since 0.8a) and prevent a single player controlled Hyperion or Tempest from soloing an entire fleet, not burn-out cruisers and even capitals half way through an endgame fight!  Such huge endgame fights are highly sensitive to map size, and given how big fights get, nothing less than 500 map size is sufficient.  If fights stay this big, with capital spam and all, not only PPT needs to be raised for all, but also maximum map size raised so that player can deploy more than a few big ships.

Also, I delay building most industries until nearly the very end thanks to punishing expeditions.  Most of the fun of colony building is more like a reward for winning the game, not part of game progression, at least not if you do not want to see your colonies burned down.

Yeah it is especially interesting capital spam is such a big part of the play now given how the lore missions make having or sinking just a single Onslaught seem like such a big deal... Then you have to causally deal with 5-10 of them or their equivalents 3 hours in.

Also having colony building as a 'reward' simply does not make sense to me. I mean the game punishing you for not having the means to defend a booming colony that rivals a core system planet? Sure.

Game punishing you for running an outback tech-mining operation that nets you barely anything above your expenditure with supplies with your fleet of a couple freighters and some frigates? With pirate armadas spawning merely 2 in-game months in? This is what made me stop playing until I can at least find how to mod it to fix it.

8
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Galatia Complete [1.5] - Galactic Space Music Mod
« on: August 23, 2019, 05:35:48 PM »
Oh boy one of the tracks sounds like one obscure song I heard once like 10 years ago. What if they end up finding about this niche space battle game and *gasp* sue the devs!

Better just blanket ban all music mods or even any non-utility mod while at it.

9
Suggestions / Mid-game (early-mid?) length
« on: August 23, 2019, 04:57:15 PM »
Not sure if I am missing something but feels like early mid to mid-game is very short before player ends up in late-game. For instance it takes very little to hit lvl 30+ and bounties are leveled up to 200k+ after doing a few 50k tier bounties, involving multiple hits on capital ship fleets that require an equivalent fleet right after the player has been just getting started with frigate wolf packs.

Similar thing for colonies. Getting a fringe mining operation with size 3 running involves regularly defeating pirate armadas with 10 atlases. It feels like the game is rigged against the player who wants to RP and wants to avoid metagaming to break the barrier after which it all gets repetitive anyway. Seems like the jump from getting some small fleet going with some mining operations to scouring through station after station, planet after planet, conquering everything in sight is a very steep but short one.

10
Suggestions / Re: Rename Sabot to Flechette
« on: August 12, 2019, 12:08:50 AM »
There is a thing called non-discarding sabot. Again, it literally and only means a piece of wrap-around housing that fits a projectile to a barrel

11
Suggestions / Re: Rename Sabot to Flechette
« on: August 11, 2019, 03:21:46 PM »
Good point about disruption from renaming something common. I have a feeling the consensus will be towards keeping the misnomer so how about a blurb about say, how it was developed into a missile from a saboted shot traditionally fired from a large cannon but the name "Sabot shot" still stuck for the missiles?

Actually now that I think of it that also fits how the US navy is developing railguns - saboted single flechettes. So makes sense that it goes from that to multi-flechette shots to a missile to bundle a larger payload to bypass the huge efficiency loss the large diameter would cause with anything more than a handful.

12
Suggestions / Re: Rename Sabot to Fletchette
« on: August 11, 2019, 01:02:46 PM »
Keep in mind even that saboted round in the picture is a fletchette

13
Suggestions / Rename Sabot to Flechette
« on: August 11, 2019, 01:00:48 PM »
Sabot is the barbell looking thingamajig that makes the projectile have the same profile as the barrel for rifling etc


Flechette is what each 'dart' is called for these kinds of rounds or shells that 'split' themselves


It's pretty minor but has been getting to me

Pages: [1]