Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mortrag]

Why outermost slipstreams are not forming generally continuous structure? With gaps and intersection but nonetheless. It can be clockwise for some time period and counterclockwise for another but it will be actually not frustrating for the most of the time like the current one with horizontal and vertical intersections breaking the flow. When both horizontal routes and both vertical routes are going in the same direction this creates a situation with corners what always in the state when all routes are either outbound or inbound. If the whole structure is continuous (north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound) it will make much more practical sense.

What is your question aiming at?

Do you want to a) add more slipstreams, so that there is always a continuous structure around the core-sector? In that case you would add a continuous wall between inner and outer sector, with easy passages only at a few spots. I think that would diminish the fun in the relaxed space-travell, if you know you're always forced to pass one of the streams to get in or out the core. (And regarding the already existing criticism about slipstreams, and I don't think a lot of people would like that.)

Or do you want to b) remove the slipstreams, which aren't part of the clockwise or counterclockwise structure (which already exists in the current state)? That would just be boring.

And if it is a) + b), I would bring both arguments to the table.

[Lucky33]

Why outermost slipstreams are not forming generally continuous structure? With gaps and intersection but nonetheless. It can be clockwise for some time period and counterclockwise for another but it will be actually not frustrating for the most of the time like the current one with horizontal and vertical intersections breaking the flow. When both horizontal routes and both vertical routes are going in the same direction this creates a situation with corners what always in the state when all routes are either outbound or inbound. If the whole structure is continuous (north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound) it will make much more practical sense.

What is your question aiming at?

Do you want to a) add more slipstreams, so that there is always a continuous structure around the core-sector? In that case you would add a continuous wall between inner and outer sector, with easy passages only at a few spots. I think that would diminish the fun in the relaxed space-travell, if you know you're always forced to pass one of the streams to get in or out the core. (And regarding the already existing criticism about slipstreams, and I don't think a lot of people would like that.)

Or do you want to b) remove the slipstreams, which aren't part of the clockwise or counterclockwise structure (which already exists in the current state)? That would just be boring.

And if it is a) + b), I would bring both arguments to the table.

I'm aiming at making slipstreams less of a pain and of more use.

Addition or removal of slipstreams is not needed.

I said "outermost". It is clearly not between inner and outer sector.

[Mortrag]

Why outermost slipstreams are not forming generally continuous structure? With gaps and intersection but nonetheless. It can be clockwise for some time period and counterclockwise for another but it will be actually not frustrating for the most of the time like the current one with horizontal and vertical intersections breaking the flow. When both horizontal routes and both vertical routes are going in the same direction this creates a situation with corners what always in the state when all routes are either outbound or inbound. If the whole structure is continuous (north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound) it will make much more practical sense.

What is your question aiming at?

Do you want to a) add more slipstreams, so that there is always a continuous structure around the core-sector? In that case you would add a continuous wall between inner and outer sector, with easy passages only at a few spots. I think that would diminish the fun in the relaxed space-travell, if you know you're always forced to pass one of the streams to get in or out the core. (And regarding the already existing criticism about slipstreams, and I don't think a lot of people would like that.)

Or do you want to b) remove the slipstreams, which aren't part of the clockwise or counterclockwise structure (which already exists in the current state)? That would just be boring.

And if it is a) + b), I would bring both arguments to the table.

I'm aiming at making slipstreams less of a pain and of more use.

Addition or removal of slipstreams is not needed.

Edit, because I missed something:
So you just want to change the direction of half of the slipstreams, so that the one corner where they meet is removed?
(As seen here: Full map of slipstreams )

I said "outermost". It is clearly not between inner and outer sector.

Either we're already talking about the same, because a partly/mostly continuous structure of slipstreams that encloses 3/4 of the Sector does already exist.
Or do you want to add an extra slipstream-highway at the borders of the map?

[Lucky33]

Why outermost slipstreams are not forming generally continuous structure? With gaps and intersection but nonetheless. It can be clockwise for some time period and counterclockwise for another but it will be actually not frustrating for the most of the time like the current one with horizontal and vertical intersections breaking the flow. When both horizontal routes and both vertical routes are going in the same direction this creates a situation with corners what always in the state when all routes are either outbound or inbound. If the whole structure is continuous (north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound) it will make much more practical sense.

What is your question aiming at?

Do you want to a) add more slipstreams, so that there is always a continuous structure around the core-sector? In that case you would add a continuous wall between inner and outer sector, with easy passages only at a few spots. I think that would diminish the fun in the relaxed space-travell, if you know you're always forced to pass one of the streams to get in or out the core. (And regarding the already existing criticism about slipstreams, and I don't think a lot of people would like that.)

Or do you want to b) remove the slipstreams, which aren't part of the clockwise or counterclockwise structure (which already exists in the current state)? That would just be boring.

And if it is a) + b), I would bring both arguments to the table.

I'm aiming at making slipstreams less of a pain and of more use.

Addition or removal of slipstreams is not needed.

So you want to reposition the weird slipstreams, to close the holes in the existing continous structure?
From my point of view that's a) + b) so I bring both arguments forth.

And if you want to neither add, nor remove, nor reposition any slipstreams, then everything stays the same and in fact you want to change nothing.

I said "outermost". It is clearly not between inner and outer sector.

Either we're already talking about the same, because a partly/mostly continuous structure of slipstreams that encloses 3/4 of the Sector does already exist.
Or do you want to add an extra slipstream-highway at the borders of the map?

No, I want to redirect the streams.

As I said:

"north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound"

[Mortrag]

Ok, I misremembered that part and thought they were already doing that thing, instead of north- and south-stream running parallel.

In that case, I'm indifferent to that suggestion. May be helpful for some players, not sure if it's confusing for others.

[Kelenius]

I think I ran into a small bug - if you go to Hesperus to go to the shrine, get refused because of low relationship, then return while having the [certain item] in your inventory, you can't talk with Orbis about visiting the shrine, your only conversation option is to give him the [certain item].

[Megas]

Silly moment:  In a gate system I considered colonizing I looted a derelict drone and got a "Habitable World" pointer note.  That habitable world was 1) in the same system the drone and I were in at the moment and 2) it turned out to be the Sentinel colony (BOO!) after I went to the habitable it pointed at.

[Lucky33]

Why outermost slipstreams are not forming generally continuous structure? With gaps and intersection but nonetheless. It can be clockwise for some time period and counterclockwise for another but it will be actually not frustrating for the most of the time like the current one with horizontal and vertical intersections breaking the flow. When both horizontal routes and both vertical routes are going in the same direction this creates a situation with corners what always in the state when all routes are either outbound or inbound. If the whole structure is continuous (north route is eastbound, east vertical route is southbound, south route is westbound and west vertical route is northbound) it will make much more practical sense.

What is your question aiming at?

Do you want to a) add more slipstreams, so that there is always a continuous structure around the core-sector? In that case you would add a continuous wall between inner and outer sector, with easy passages only at a few spots. I think that would diminish the fun in the relaxed space-travell, if you know you're always forced to pass one of the streams to get in or out the core. (And regarding the already existing criticism about slipstreams, and I don't think a lot of people would like that.)

Or do you want to b) remove the slipstreams, which aren't part of the clockwise or counterclockwise structure (which already exists in the current state)? That would just be boring.

And if it is a) + b), I would bring both arguments to the table.

I'm aiming at making slipstreams less of a pain and of more use.

Addition or removal of slipstreams is not needed.

Edit, because I missed something:
So you just want to change the direction of half of the slipstreams, so that the one corner where they meet is removed?
(As seen here: Full map of slipstreams )

I said "outermost". It is clearly not between inner and outer sector.

Either we're already talking about the same, because a partly/mostly continuous structure of slipstreams that encloses 3/4 of the Sector does already exist.
Or do you want to add an extra slipstream-highway at the borders of the map?

This is what I'm talking about:

"I'm aiming at making slipstreams less of a pain and of more use"

And no, mostly continuous structure of slipstreams doesn't exist. Only half of the current structure can provide said continuous route.

[PizzaInSpace]

I miss old pegasus
also is there any future plans to expand the usurpurs storyline?

[Grievous69]

Yo why is the s-mod bonus for Solar Shielding this bad compared to the rest? Other cheap hullmods get great things, Stabilized Shields, Armoured Weapon Mounts, Advanced Turrent Gyros, Expanded Magazines, etc. And then you have this chump giving 25% more CR protection while in coronas and such terrain, when it already gave you 75%. That's so awful when you look at the rest, I don't even want to spend a story point on LG ships where it's technically free lol.

[solardawning]

Yo why is the s-mod bonus for Solar Shielding this bad compared to the rest? Other cheap hullmods get great things, Stabilized Shields, Armoured Weapon Mounts, Advanced Turret Gyros, Expanded Magazines, etc. And then you have this chump giving 25% more CR protection while in coronas and such terrain, when it already gave you 75%. That's so awful when you look at the rest, I don't even want to spend a story point on LG ships where it's technically free lol.

I went through a similar thought process- wondering why it didn't get an improvement to the in-battle Energy Damage reduction as well, but then I tried out a full S-Modded Solar Shielding fleet, and it opens up some pretty interesting gameplay options.

For example: Lure enemy fleets to chase you at the end of a corona that's pushing them away. Or into a black hole.
You can sit out of their reach for a short while, and let their CR plummet... and then engage them.

[Wyvern]

Qualitative benefits matter. Being completely immune to damage from hyperspace storms is a game-changer for how interesting it makes hyperspace travel. Being completely immune to neutron star beams is nice, too.

Now, I've got ships that don't have solar shielding s-modded. But they mostly sit in storage, only getting pulled out for special occasions.

(I am also running with Best of the Best. Without that, s-modding solar shielding everywhere would be rather more of a sacrifice.)

[Grievous69]

Well yeah that's what I wanted to say before that last line. S-modding it makes sense if you're going to do it for the whole fleet, but that's a huge cost just for being able to travel more comfortably. It doesn't do anything for combat unless you cheese the enemy fleets.

I'm honestly shocked how many people run Best of the best. So many comments, screenshots and video tend to have ships with 3 s-mods. Ever since the skill rework, I didn't touch Leadership much up until this run now, where I wanted to try out BotB and see how it goes. Guess it's even better now with the bonuses, but man do I miss having a bunch of combat skills.

[Megas]

On Executor, s-modding the builtin is +100% bonus, so it is a matter of "why not?" or "I need the green for faster leveling up."  As for other ships, I have more important things to s-mod.

One s-mod that is mostly lame to s-mod is High Scatter Amplifier.  +5% damage for a hullmod that is hard to justify using in the first place.

I'm honestly shocked how many people run Best of the best. So many comments, screenshots and video tend to have ships with 3 s-mods. Ever since the skill rework, I didn't touch Leadership much up until this run now, where I wanted to try out BotB and see how it goes. Guess it's even better now with the bonuses, but man do I miss having a bunch of combat skills.

Yes.  It makes BotB look overpowered, and more so with the advent of s-mod bonuses.

I wonder if Combat is worth it on the flagship (that is not overpowered for its DP and/or cannot exploit dirty rotten cheese).  Old releases, Combat made the playership better than others.  Now, it is to try to keep up with everybody else in the endgame.

[Hiruma Kai]

I'm honestly shocked how many people run Best of the best. So many comments, screenshots and video tend to have ships with 3 s-mods. Ever since the skill rework, I didn't touch Leadership much up until this run now, where I wanted to try out BotB and see how it goes. Guess it's even better now with the bonuses, but man do I miss having a bunch of combat skills.

I am now vaguely curious as to what your typical skill spread looks like since Leadership 5 still leaves the possibility for up to 10 combat skills, or up to 8 if you want combat skills from Technology and Industry.  Those numbers only sound low in comparison to the maximum of 13 combat skills (which I personally do when soloing with my flagship).  I'll note even just Coordinated Maneuvers and Crew Training are solid bonuses to nearly any flagship (okay not so much Coordinated Maneuvers and an Onslaught, but still).