Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality  (Read 2221 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2022, 04:35:13 PM »

Another reason why I dislike story points for upgrades, aside from feeling more credit-y than credits, is because upgrade uses dominate the History entry granted by historian after five years or so.  Look at all of the officers I mentored then fired after they outlived their usefulness.  Look at all of the ships I upgraded.  Where's that entry that I convinced that beta core to surrender and become a party member (for one of my automated ships)?  Where's that entry that I pulled swordsmanship skills out of my butt?  Hidden among all of the mundane upgrade uses of story points that I do not care about being recorded.

Yes, I do think player should be able to easily change his fleet provided he has the ships at hand, which can easily be the case by endgame, especially for packrats with Hull Restoration.  By endgame, I have dozens and dozens of ships, maybe more than a hundred.  So many that my storage is pages long, and I really wished we still had old Starfarer's pages that were tabbed by ship size (frigates/destroyers/cruisers/capitals) instead of everything lumped into a single page.

Officers are more problematic because it takes much longer to level up new officers than to swap ships in-and-out of storage or reassign skills on your character.  (Took days for me to level eight replacement officers from 1 to 5 just because I wanted to change my fleet.)  Replacing officers is harder than replacing ships.

Quote
I mean, you can buy a Paragon with your first million credits or so, but then you can't sell it for full price back and buy an Odyssey instead.
I would put the Paragon back into storage until I decide I want to use it again.

I cannot do that with officers.  If I suddenly need eight missile specialists for Gryphon monofleet after I had eight jacks or random joes for a ragtag fleet earlier in the game, I need to fire my old officers then hire and train new ones because I cannot respec officers or bench them.  (Leveling up eight new officers from 1 to 5 took days for me.)  Then after I get tired of Gryphon spam and I want another fleet, time to fire the missile officers and hire new officers for the new fleet.

There is nothing in the game that has a bottomless appetite for credits.  However, colonies have an insatiable appetite for story points if player wants many improvements.
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2022, 05:08:59 PM »

To recognize the orientation of the ship you have to recognize the front of the sprite, which with certain ships may not be immediately obvious at first glance (Doritos come to mind, as well as some mod ships), at least to me.  Any system for indicating direction needs to be universal and unambigious, like how the green and red arrows are currently.
If the arrows are more "universal" and "unambiguous" then why bother showing the ship's direction during combat? You would always prefer arrows if they were better. While the tactical view and the combat view are different, they are not so different that it fundamentally changes how information should be presented. It takes far longer to figure out what's going on through the tactical view than it should because you have to hunt down these little arrows just to figure out where the damn ship is facing. Even for doritos I would never prefer this system over one where the combat view and tactical view match. The earlier argument about colour blindness has some validity, but that should be addressed with a colour-blindness setting rather than keeping outdated visual design.

This is one of the most clear cut open and shut slam dunk homerun cases I ever did see. No shot you would want to go back to this system if there was an update that rotated the sprites.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2022, 06:23:22 PM »

To recognize the orientation of the ship you have to recognize the front of the sprite, which with certain ships may not be immediately obvious at first glance (Doritos come to mind, as well as some mod ships), at least to me.  Any system for indicating direction needs to be universal and unambigious, like how the green and red arrows are currently.
If the arrows are more "universal" and "unambiguous" then why bother showing the ship's direction during combat? You would always prefer arrows if they were better.

Well, I personally wouldn't mind having both on the combat layer.  For example, I think the ship direction mod is a nice quality of life mod for the combat layer (especially if using Neural link to jump between ships a lot and wanting to see how things are moving when paused).  One is for clarity (arrows), the other is for immersion (sprites).  As a counter example, I wouldn't want to have the aiming reticule removed and replaced with just concentric range circles just because we can see the direction weapons are facing on our ships. 

Like take some of the Outer Rim Alliance ships mod ships.  I can't tell which way is forward on some of those on the tactical map, and even have some trouble on the combat layer.  I don't know if anyone has made a spheroid or flying saucer ship, but those would also cause me some problems in telling which way is forward.

While the tactical view and the combat view are different, they are not so different that it fundamentally changes how information should be presented. It takes far longer to figure out what's going on through the tactical view than it should because you have to hunt down these little arrows just to figure out where the damn ship is facing. Even for doritos I would never prefer this system over one where the combat view and tactical view match. The earlier argument about colour blindness has some validity, but that should be addressed with a colour-blindness setting rather than keeping outdated visual design.

I would tend to disagree.  They are fundamentally different because the tactical map has a completely different zoom scale.  If I used a modded game with unlimited combat layer zoom, I start to have issues figuring out what is going on at the highest zoom out levels.  And because the zoom scale is different, the sprites on it are some kind of compressed, no weapon versions.

If you are finding it hard to find the green arrows, then they likely should be made bigger, or adaptively scale better in size as the zoom changes.  However, please don't take them away.  Simply because of some ships, like the Wolf, are basically symmetric cylinders.  Hunting for green arrows is no worse than hunting for some tiny bump on the ship's highly minimized sprite, which might be impossible for completely front back symmetric frigate silhouettes.

I attach two images of a wolf, one of which has been flipped upside down.  It would tend to think a green arrow (or dot) is clearer than those blue smudges.  I mean, which one of them is facing up?

I'm will note I'm not objecting to both, but I'm trying to point out not all sprite cases are going to be slam dunks, and that an unambiguous UI symbol is better for the potential mod verse of ships.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: September 03, 2022, 06:35:32 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2022, 07:20:20 PM »

Combat UI could stand to better highlight important information (flux) instead of dedicating vast amounts of screen space to clutter (weapon names). No tooltips. Tiny text. '90s mono-color. Yuck.

The tactical UI is not clear enough (flux status is hidden) and is outright missing important information (peak performance time).
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2022, 07:50:49 PM »

Well, I personally wouldn't mind having both on the combat layer.  For example, I think the ship direction mod is a nice quality of life mod for the combat layer.
While that is a great mod, it shows where the ship is traveling not where it's pointing.

One is for clarity (arrows), the other is for immersion (sprites).
There is nothing clearer about these tiny little arrows that you can barely even see when multiple ships clump together. You don't have to remove the arrow from the tactical view, but having the ship also rotate in the same direction is much clearer.

Quote
I would tend to disagree.  They are fundamentally different because the tactical map has a completely different zoom scale.  If I used a modded game with unlimited combat layer zoom, I start to have issues figuring out what is going on at the highest zoom out levels.  And because the zoom scale is different, the sprites on it are some kind of compressed, no weapon versions.
You know you can zoom in on the tactical scale right? Even zoomed way out it's easier to look at the sprite then an arrow that's a fraction the size. I don't think your brain works the same as mine if you believe the arrow is clearer then the sprite itself (yeah some ships look weird, but that's only going to matter the first time you encounter them).

Quote
I'm will note I'm not objecting to both.
Neither am I, but the current system is a pain in the rear and I suspect you would come around if there was an update where the sprites rotated in addition to the arrow. Just imagine the combat view where ships always point up or down but now there's an arrow indicating the true facing. It doesn't work at all. The tactical view only gets away with it because there are no projectiles or hitboxes to consider, but if you have multiple ships fighting each other and try to get a read on the situation it's super unclear which ship is pointing in which direction to the point that I have to use the video feed far more often then I'd like to. Then, all of sudden, I can quickly figure out what's going because the ships are actually facing in the direction they're facing. I should just be able to figure that out by zooming in on the tactical map but it takes way longer to process what's happening because I just went from the combat view where all I have to do is look at each ship, to the tactical view where now I have to find a small UI element on multiple ships to figure it out.

It's by no means a big deal, and the game is still fun as is, but it's pretty clear cut that one works better than the other.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2022, 09:56:37 PM »

You know you can zoom in on the tactical scale right? Even zoomed way out it's easier to look at the sprite then an arrow that's a fraction the size. I don't think your brain works the same as mine if you believe the arrow is clearer then the sprite itself (yeah some ships look weird, but that's only going to matter the first time you encounter them).

Yes, I am aware I can zoom in on the tactical scale, but that doesn't always help.  To explain what I mean, I attach two images which are clipped from a fully zoomed in tactical map, such that I can't zoom in any farther.

Can you tell me how to figure out from the attached image which way the Outer Rim Alliance Bliss frigate is pointing?  I rotated it, but did I rotate it 45 degrees counter-clockwise and thus it is facing the upper left, or did I rotate it 135 degrees clockwise and thus it is facing the bottom right?  Can you tell me what about the sprite makes you choose upper left or lower right?  The attached second png I can tell it's facing the upper left because the green arrow is unambiguous, unlike the ship sprite.

Now, could the arrows be bigger to make them easier to find when zoomed out?  Of course.  Is the green arrow a perfect solution, no since it's clearly causing yourself and likely others problems?  Probably there is a solution out there that works better (maybe making the squares surrounding the sprites have one side be a triangle instead of flat?), but I submit that any good UI solution is going to need to be both universal and unambiguous, which means it cannot be based off the sprite alone, since a modder can design their ships in any way they want, including confusing ways.

I'm will note I'm not objecting to both.
Neither am I, but the current system is a pain in the rear and I suspect you would come around if there was an update where the sprites rotated in addition to the arrow.

If they rotated in addition to the arrow, or some other similarly universal and unambiguous indicator, I agree with you.  All I'm saying is don't remove it without something better.  However, the initial proposal was to do the rotation instead of the arrow, not in combination.  Or as I quote:

Can we please just have the ship sprites rotated instead?

It is quite possible we are in violent agreement.  So... Want to guess which way that rotated Bliss is facing? :)

Edit:
The tactical UI is not clear enough (flux status is hidden) and is outright missing important information (peak performance time).

I agree, showing flux levels would be a huge improvement for the tactical map, as that would let you know at a glance who is winning and losing, along with the already existing hull bar and CR bars.  Arguably, the flux bar is more important to display than the CR bar, since it relevant the whole fight, while the CR bar really only matters at the end of a long fight.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: September 03, 2022, 10:04:47 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

Delta_of_Isaire

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2022, 12:57:08 AM »

Can we please just have the ship sprites rotated instead?

It is quite possible we are in violent agreement.  So... Want to guess which way that rotated Bliss is facing? :)

Considering I have a 50% chance to be correct purely by chance, the outcome of my guess would only constitute weak evidence that wouldn't fully convince you anyway. Much more importantly though, it's a Mod ship. Catering to mods is well and good up to a point, but in this case I think it's the mod author's responsibility to design a ship that isn't fully symmetrical. If nothing else, the sprite should have engines painted on it, which tend to be in the rear.

Hey, I'll concede. The current arrow doesn't need to go away. We can have both sprite rotation and an arrow to indicate direction.

I strongly oppose the suggestion about the command view, currently enemy ship face down and friendly ship face up in the command screen, with the arrow indicating direction in the battle scape, in my opinon this is an easier way to quickly identify the alliegance of ships (is that a friendly omen or a hostile omen? et cetera). For me this kind of pattern recognition is easier and faster than colour recognition, especially when colourblindedness is thrown into the mix.*
Friendlies are outlined by a green square. Enemies are outlined by a red diamond. That's a pretty solid difference. I can see how red/green isn't the best color scheme, but the solution there is providing the option of alternative colors.

Regarding slipstreams, they appear and disappear at fixed times (fading in July and December, IIRC) so you can schedule around that.
Personally I never liked to check the calendar for the monsoon season before going out on an expedition, but maybe I'll try actually doing it a few times.
Yeah. And half the year slipstreams tend to blow east, and half the year they blow west. Theoretically you can plan around that. In practice however I find the player doesn't have enough control over the target location of bounties and missions to make it work. There aren't enough different missions or bounties available to be picky about which ones to take.

And missions have time limits - both for their completion and for how long they are available. So if you see a good opportunity to chain 4-5 missions together then you cannot loiter for 2 months for the season to be correct.

[commands]
The inverse already exists in the form of the search and destroy command applied to all ships you want to ignore automatic assignment.  Which admittedly is a lot more clicking than your proposal - although it is more fine tuned in that you can leave some ships to automatically reassign if you wish.
That's kind of my point. It isn't that it is impossible to get the correct behavior - it's that it takes a lot of work to do that. As soon as you give one command to one ship, you then also have to give commands to every other ship in your fleet lest they do something unintended. That all-or-nothing nature of commands is what bugs me.

[Ship AI target selection]
Alex seems to always be making tweaks to the AI to try and improve edge cases, but I feel like you're simplifying quite a bit here.  I'm not sure it actually is low-hanging fruit.  Do you have a nice criteria that should be applied via algorithm that can show how it's easy to handle?  Keeping in mind it also has to work reasonably well with mod ships, mod weapons, as well as unusual fits (i.e. Onslaught with no PD weapons...).  Can you handle the situation with a Kite with 2 reapers.  Or a Tempest with an Ion beam?  Or how about some mod ship with modded weapons which have significant script based damage?  Maybe there is a simple universally applicable algorithm for prioritizing what a capital should be engaging, and would love to hear it if there is.
I would give each enemy ship a rating based on its proximity to the AI's ship, (maximum) speed compared to the AI's ship, and remaining hull integrity (as % of total). More points for being proximate; more points for being slower than the AI's ship but negative points for being faster than the AI's ship; and more points for being low on hull. Then make the AI target whichever enemy ship gets the highest rating.

Of course this is just a guess. And without the ability to test it, I cannot say if proximity/speed/hull is enough information, or how heavily each factor should be weighed.

Also I need to mention [S-mods]
The whole point of story points was to be a rare resource that you're not swimming in by end game, unlike credits, so a credit to s-mod conversion completely misses the intended purpose of story points.  Now people may feel story points are too limiting for what they want to do at end game, but that's what they're intended to be.  An XP tied progression mechanic that's easier to gain at the beginning and harder to gain at the end.
Funny how I mention the credits-to-S-mods idea only to dismiss it while raising an alternative solution, and then everybody reacts to the credits thing regardless.

Buying storypoints with credits is a bad idea. The point is that some current uses of storypoints, like S-mods (but also colony improvements), should not require storypoints in the first place. Or at least not nearly as many. Why? because there is a mismatch between the scarcity of storypoints and the sheer number of S-mods (and colony improvements) that a player wants to get.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2022, 01:30:20 AM »

It makes losses more meaningful
Why would this ever be a goal is beyond me. So basically what Megas had been saying for ages is now even more true with s-mods, and that is flawless victories. 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. Your comparison with overpowered skills from before means we're kinda on the same power level of ships, it's just much more annoying to lose them in fights now.

And not sure what do you mean by "it forces decisions and trade offs". You spend points to make a ship stronger, that's it. I was never in a situation where I had to think hard about which hullmod to build in. The only decision is "will this ship be a part of my end game fleet?".

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.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #23 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.
Eg:
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.)
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2022, 01:52:01 AM »

Why would this ever be a goal is beyond me. So basically what Megas had been saying for ages is now even more true with s-mods, and that is flawless victories. 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.

Well, presumably in finished state the game will be pure ironman so no reloads. Also S-mods/officers are supposed to make ships recoverable more often, I dunno if it actually applies though.

The funny thing I noticed about S-mods is that you're kind of incentivized to put them on ships you DON'T want to keep. I spent a lot of time trying to come up with an ideal exploration fleet and realized that I lose nothing long term by putting S-mods on my exploration ships because once the exploration is over I can just scuttle them and get 100% bonus XP back. Meanwhile if you put S-mods on your "permanent" ships you are losing bonus XP/SP.

So yeah, the SP mechanics are all kinds of weird when it comes to ships. But at the same time ships are the only legitimate SP sink in the game(spending SP on colonies, be it Improvements or items from the Historian, is basically turning SP into money - terrible trade) so you can't really rip the whole mechanic out and be done with it.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2022, 04:57:24 AM »

Why would this ever be a goal is beyond me. So basically what Megas had been saying for ages is now even more true with s-mods, and that is flawless victories. 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. Your comparison with overpowered skills from before means we're kinda on the same power level of ships, it's just much more annoying to lose them in fights now.
This is why I consider Hull Restoration a must-have skill for me.  It lowers the bar from flawless victory to sometimes lose several ships.  Hull Restoration also means that looting ships from combat becomes a useful source of new ships.  (People keep saying ships are too easy to buy and acquire.  With either Industry capstone, player does not need to buy ships, he can just take them from the enemy.)  In my most recent game, I avoided combat at all costs until I got Hull Restoration at level 6.

While fun, it can be annoying because if I want other skills (especially in Leadership) and need to give up Hull Restoration, it means my room for error has sunk to zero (because I need to play perfectly for zero casualties) and it becomes a huge annoyance to play.

As for s-mods, the only time bonus xp gain is fast enough to pay off the excess green debt is fighting endgame fleets at (almost) +500% multiplier.  That means Ordos grinding for any fleet bigger than a solo flagship.

So yeah, the SP mechanics are all kinds of weird when it comes to ships. But at the same time ships are the only legitimate SP sink in the game(spending SP on colonies, be it Improvements or items from the Historian, is basically turning SP into money - terrible trade) so you can't really rip the whole mechanic out and be done with it.
It is not all money on colonies.  Stability is nice to keep it at 10 (for fleets and ship production) if player otherwise has too many penalties (especially from Commerce and Free Port).  Extra production to have colonies produce enough (and in case of Heavy Industry, more production per month).  More defenses.  Accessibility on fringe worlds to get it high enough for exports (not just for money, but also meeting demand).  Aside from that, more income is nice if it means player does not need to chase bounties or other missions for a high enough stable income.

Respecs can be a sink if player does it often, especially if player had third s-mods from BotB or buffed officers that will lose skills or become mercs after a respec.

Officers are a sink, with mentoring and elite skills, and it is not one-and-done when player wants to fire them all and get new ones for a new fleet sometime in the future.

Raiding colonies for all of the rare blueprints is tedious (needs lots of marines and time to some markets to regain stability) and buying blueprints when available can be tempting.  In any case, player will need to spend at least one on historian for the Legion XIV blueprint because there is no other way to get that one blueprint.
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2022, 05:08:19 AM »

It is quite possible we are in violent agreement.  So... Want to guess which way that rotated Bliss is facing? :)
In an actual battle, I would guess it's facing towards the enemy. This would only be ambiguous if it was surrounded, at which point where it's facing is the least of my concerns.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2022, 05:13:15 AM »

Regarding slipstreams, they appear and disappear at fixed times (fading in July and December, IIRC) so you can schedule around that.
Personally I never liked to check the calendar for the monsoon season before going out on an expedition, but maybe I'll try actually doing it a few times.
Yeah. And half the year slipstreams tend to blow east, and half the year they blow west. Theoretically you can plan around that. In practice however I find the player doesn't have enough control over the target location of bounties and missions to make it work. There aren't enough different missions or bounties available to be picky about which ones to take.

And missions have time limits - both for their completion and for how long they are available. So if you see a good opportunity to chain 4-5 missions together then you cannot loiter for 2 months for the season to be correct.
I find slipstreams most relevant when they appear near your main colony system.  If they happen to flow where the player wants to go, whether from colony to elsewhere or flowing to colony on the way home, streams are convenient.  If player needs to cross or fight streams too much, then they are annoying.

I started another game recently, and I had to fight streams more in this one than in the previous game.
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: List of minor improvements for major increase in quality
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2022, 05:18:44 AM »

This is why I consider Hull Restoration a must-have skill for me.  It lowers the bar from flawless victory to sometimes lose several ships.  Hull Restoration also means that looting ships from combat becomes a useful source of new ships.  (People keep saying ships are too easy to buy and acquire.  With either Industry capstone, player does not need to buy ships, he can just take them from the enemy.)  In my most recent game, I avoided combat at all costs until I got Hull Restoration at level 6.
Any ship with an officer or s-mod on it is guaranteed recoverable even without hull restoration, and you can put bulkheads on any ship you don't plan to keep longterm.

The funny thing I noticed about S-mods is that you're kind of incentivized to put them on ships you DON'T want to keep. I spent a lot of time trying to come up with an ideal exploration fleet and realized that I lose nothing long term by putting S-mods on my exploration ships because once the exploration is over I can just scuttle them and get 100% bonus XP back. Meanwhile if you put S-mods on your "permanent" ships you are losing bonus XP/SP.
Problem: you get bonus xp from putting s-mods on ships in the first place, or from doing literally anything with story points, so you already have a massive amount of bonus xp waiting to be used up. At this point, scuttling for that bonus xp does not help you get your story point back any faster.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts
Pages: 1 [2] 3