Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)
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.
Quote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 12:48:12 AMWhy 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.
Quote from: Mortrag on May 19, 2023, 01:46:20 AMQuote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 12:48:12 AMWhy 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.
Quote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 02:06:44 AMQuote from: Mortrag on May 19, 2023, 01:46:20 AMQuote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 12:48:12 AMWhy 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.Quote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 02:06:44 AMI 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?
Quote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 02:06:44 AMQuote from: Mortrag on May 19, 2023, 01:46:20 AMQuote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 12:48:12 AMWhy 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 )Quote from: Lucky33 on May 19, 2023, 02:06:44 AMI 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?
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.
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.
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.