Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 99

Author Topic: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 323006 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1365 on: July 08, 2023, 08:15:17 PM »

Buffalo (A) is good because it can use Expanded Cargo Holds without penalty and without s-mod investment.  It is practically an extra-large Wayfarer because it has high enough storage for its size that it gets +30% cargo from Expanded Cargo Holds.  During the time I use small freighters, I do not want to waste s-mods on ships that I know I will not keep in the fleet for very long (because I will upgrade to bigger ships soon enough), and my DP is not high enough to penalize skills yet.
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1366 on: July 08, 2023, 11:22:30 PM »

Military subsystems also removes the maintenance penalty for expanded cargo/fuel/crew storage.
So what? Even without Efficiency Overhaul or story point investment, Militarized Subsystems isn't saving you any meaningful amount - expanded storage is just 1.5 supplies per month on a Buffalo, or around an order of magnitude less supplies per month than a single destroyer or two to three frigates, so getting rid of that supply cost isn't going to have a meaningful impact on your fleet's logistical footprint unless you've gone very heavy on the noncombatants. On top of that, Militarized Subsystems costs you 10 extra crew regardless of whether we're looking at the in-built version on a Buffalo (A) or the one you can add to any other Buffalo, and since crew costs 10 credits per month while supplies can usually be had for around 100-150 credits per unit you're effectively paying 100 credits per month to save an average of 150 or 200 credits per month, which is basically nothing.

Though if you’re using story points that also doesn’t matter.
Willingness to invest story points in an Atlas or even a Colossus does not imply a similar willingness to invest story points in a Buffalo.

Buffalo (A) is good because it can use Expanded Cargo Holds without penalty and without s-mod investment.
Except that it's not really without penalty; assuming no story point investment, you're just shifting the penalty from the +1.2/+1.5 supplies/month for Expanded Cargo Holds to the +8/+10 crew for Militarized Subsystems with/without Efficiency Overhaul, and especially considering that an extra 1.2 or 1.5 supplies per month per Buffalo is unlikely to be significant compared to your overall fleet supply consumption that's as near enough the same cost as matters.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2023, 11:28:22 PM by Aeson »
Logged

Lawrence Master-blaster

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1367 on: July 08, 2023, 11:47:38 PM »

You can only have two logistical hullmods. If you care about sensor profile, one of them is going to be either Militarized Subsystems or Insulated Engine Assembly. Having MilSub built-in means you can get Expanded Cargo Holds and something else, like ISU for even lower sensor profile or Surveying Equipment for exploration.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1368 on: July 09, 2023, 04:47:57 AM »

Buffalo (A) is good because it can use Expanded Cargo Holds without penalty and without s-mod investment.
Except that it's not really without penalty; assuming no story point investment, you're just shifting the penalty from the +1.2/+1.5 supplies/month for Expanded Cargo Holds to the +8/+10 crew for Militarized Subsystems with/without Efficiency Overhaul, and especially considering that an extra 1.2 or 1.5 supplies per month per Buffalo is unlikely to be significant compared to your overall fleet supply consumption that's as near enough the same cost as matters.
I haul far more crew than the combined minimum for the fleet because I expect to lose crew from combat.  +10 crew is insignificant when I have about a dozen warships from frigates to cruisers (and maybe one capital) with higher minimum (and maximum) crew during the time of the game I would consider medium-sized haulers.  Late-game, I would move on to bigger haulers like Colossus or bigger (or Revenant).

The built-in Military Subsystems means I can slap Expanded Cargo Holds and one other dock-mod of my choice (Additional Berthing, Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, Efficiency Overhaul, Surveying Equipment, whatever) on it.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2023, 04:52:43 AM by Megas »
Logged

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1369 on: July 09, 2023, 04:11:56 PM »

I haul far more crew than the combined minimum for the fleet because I expect to lose crew from combat.  +10 crew is insignificant when I have about a dozen warships from frigates to cruisers (and maybe one capital) with higher minimum (and maximum) crew during the time of the game I would consider medium-sized haulers.  Late-game, I would move on to bigger haulers like Colossus or bigger (or Revenant).

The built-in Military Subsystems means I can slap Expanded Cargo Holds and one other dock-mod of my choice (Additional Berthing, Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, Efficiency Overhaul, Surveying Equipment, whatever) on it.
You're acting like Militarized Subsystems is mandatory; it isn't.
- Most cruisers have a base burn level of 8 and Augmented Engines are somewhat impractical to fit into most builds without spending story points somewhere. Unmilitarized Buffaloes have a burn level of either 8 or 10 depending on whether or not you took Bulk Transport while militarized Buffaloes have a burn level of 9; unless your cruisers are specifically Eradicators, Falcons, or Furies and you didn't take Bulk Transport, the +1 burn level of Militarized Subsystems is essentially irrelevant.
- If you have "a dozen warships ranging from frigates to cruisers," you're probably talking about 80+ supplies per month just for your warships. Assuming no story points are invested, a Buffalo's supply consumption is between 2.4 and 6.0 supplies per month, and unless you have a lot of Buffaloes the difference between 80 + 2.4n + x and 80 + 6n + x supplies per month, where x is however many supplies per month you're spending on non-Buffalo support ships, isn't going to be large enough to be of material significance.
- If you have "a dozen warships ranging from frigates to cruisers," you're probably talking about enough sensor strength/profile that getting 30 more sensor strength and 60 less sensor profile out of each Buffalo isn't particularly meaningful. Say you have 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 6 frigates, and a Phaeton; this gives you either 630 sensor strength and 720 sensor profile or 660 sensor strength and profile before bonuses and penalties are applied; each unmilitarized Buffalo increases sensor strength/profile by 30/120 while each militarized Buffalo increases sensor strength/profile by 60/60, so if we add five Buffaloes to the fleet we're looking at between 780 and 960 sensor strength and between 960 and 1320 sensor profile before applying bonuses and penalties. The differences here aren't nothing, but they're also not especially concerning; neither stealth nor the ability to detect other fleets before they detect your fleet are of particularly great importance except when smuggling or maybe when trying to do something in particularly dangerous systems before you have a fleet that can deal with whatever's present (although being noticed and then dragging whatever spotted you off to the middle of nowhere before losing them and dashing back to whatever point of interest you were trying to look at tends to work well enough as long as Sustained/Emergency Burn will let you outrun your pursuers).

You can only have two logistical hullmods. If you care about sensor profile, one of them is going to be either Militarized Subsystems or Insulated Engine Assembly. Having MilSub built-in means you can get Expanded Cargo Holds and something else, like ISU for even lower sensor profile or Surveying Equipment for exploration.
How often do you really need hullmod-based sensor profile reduction, Expanded Cargo Holds, and something else while off exploring, especially with a stealth fleet? Phase ships generally have higher-than-average fuel capacity for their size/fuel consumption, being stealthy means you can avoid most fights and so shouldn't particularly need to carry around large quantities of supplies and spare crew to cover combat, most of the stuff you can pick up while out exploring is low-value junk that's barely worth hauling back to the Core even when you were already about to go back, most worlds that don't have ruins on them aren't really worth surveying unless you're being paid to do it because it takes exceptional resources or a hypershunt to do much better than whatever you found in Penelope's Star or Duzahk when you're any significant distance away from the Core (and secondary industries don't actually care about local resources, so unless you can tap a hypershunt an airless rock with high accessibility, such as Dorus in Penelope's Star, is already about as good a location for most of the secondary industries as you'll ever find), hostile things can often be lured away and dodged/outrun even if you can't sneak past them, Pathers can be paid off, and pirates might even be nonhostile due to how often missions that actually benefit from a stealth fleet are offered by pirate-aligned contacts.

Also, any "stealth" fleet worthy of the name is unlikely to get much real value out of stacking both Militarized Subsystems and Insulated Engine Assembly on a little freighter like the Buffalo. You're almost certainly going to have at least a 30% reduction in sensor profile while the transponder is off from phase ships in the fleet, so putting both Militarized Subsystems and Insulated Engine Assembly on a destroyer-scale civilian fleet probably saves you no more than 21 sensor profile (10.5 while darkened) before terrain effects as compared to either Militarized Subsystems or Insulated Engine Assembly alone, and as long as your sensor profile is below about two or three hundred while darkened finding an opportunity to drop off a spysat or sneak up to a colony usually isn't too much trouble even without doing something to bait off the local patrols. A capital- or maybe cruiser-scale civilian ship might be worth both, at least if you're not going to spend a story point on Insulated Engine Assembly, but a destroyer-scale freighter like the Buffalo isn't.
Logged

Lawrence Master-blaster

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1370 on: July 09, 2023, 07:52:05 PM »

How often do you really need hullmod-based sensor profile reduction, Expanded Cargo Holds, and something else while off exploring, especially with a stealth fleet?

Well I don't really NEED it but it's nice to be able to have Expanded Cargo Holds on a hauler when doing exploration. The more cargo space the longer you can go.

But please, do continue to write walls of text about how a free thing doesn't matter because [wild assumptions].
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24157
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1371 on: July 09, 2023, 08:43:34 PM »

But please, do continue to write walls of text about how a free thing doesn't matter because [wild assumptions].

That's totally uncalled for.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1372 on: July 12, 2023, 05:29:04 AM »

You're acting like Militarized Subsystems is mandatory; it isn't.
Of course it is not.

If I want a destroyer-sized hauler, I want Buffalo (A) for the same reason I want Wayfarer if I want a frigate-sized hauler, which is a ship with the highest capacity that can get +30% from Expanded Cargo Holds without eating more supplies.  The other Buffalos can get that, but need to get Militaried Subsystems to avoid the maintenance penalty, which I do not want.  The second dock-mod I pick on ships like Wayfarer is often fuel tanks or more crew/marines (because trade is my primary income early).

I always take Apogee start, so having cruisers without Augmented Engines is something I need to deal with from the start.  I take Navigation for T-Jump and extra burn.

I bring everything with me like a Galactia ragtag fleet until I build my first colony, then I start putting ships and items in storage.  I try to avoid using abandoned stations because I do not want to rely on them (and I do not want to use other factions' worlds for storage).  I would not be surprised if Alex closes the free abandoned storage exploit somehow (like having space cubes or salvagers visiting said stations and looting them) by final release.

I do not bother with stealth early.  I get more interested in stealth later when I start raiding tougher core worlds for blueprints and/or flying a sub-100 DP Ziggurat-led fleet.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2023, 05:31:23 AM by Megas »
Logged

Cubano

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1373 on: July 13, 2023, 11:14:32 AM »

Is 0.96a-RC10 the last version in this cycle before 0.97x?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24157
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1374 on: July 13, 2023, 12:05:58 PM »

The plan is to have a 0.96.1a, though that's shaping up to be fairly beefy (as in, more than just bugfixes/QoL stuff).
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2993
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1375 on: July 13, 2023, 12:46:04 PM »

The plan is to have a 0.96.1a, though that's shaping up to be fairly beefy (as in, more than just bugfixes/QoL stuff).
Which comes as a surprise to absolutely no one on this forum lol. We're used to polish updates taking a bit longer but having some cool new nice things in addition. Although I'm curious, is there anything you can talk about or is it more spoilery stuff?
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24157
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1376 on: July 13, 2023, 12:55:34 PM »

Currently working through significant changes to Hostile Activity, and adding more content there, so it's not just pirates and Pathers. It's supposed to be a way for you to fight more things just those two, and I really want to flesh that out. And David has been adding some fun exploration content, too!

The HA stuff ("Colony Crises", now) I'll probably want to dive into with a blog post once it's closer to done!
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2993
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1377 on: July 13, 2023, 01:03:32 PM »

Thanks for the information, that does sound pretty spot on what the community was suggesting.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Cubano

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1378 on: July 13, 2023, 06:15:30 PM »

Currently working through significant changes to Hostile Activity, and adding more content there, so it's not just pirates and Pathers. It's supposed to be a way for you to fight more things just those two, and I really want to flesh that out. And David has been adding some fun exploration content, too!

The HA stuff ("Colony Crises", now) I'll probably want to dive into with a blog post once it's closer to done!

So probably a few more RC versions to test that out then as well.

Thanks for the info

Logged

Marco_Paulo

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« Reply #1379 on: July 13, 2023, 10:49:59 PM »

Currently working through significant changes to Hostile Activity, and adding more content there, so it's not just pirates and Pathers. It's supposed to be a way for you to fight more things just those two, and I really want to flesh that out. And David has been adding some fun exploration content, too!

The HA stuff ("Colony Crises", now) I'll probably want to dive into with a blog post once it's closer to done!

Looking forward to it. I remember you seemed wary of adding multiple bars for the different factions - were you thinking of a single bar, still?

I think it could work with one bar, if some of the colony defenses were taken into account for reductions. For example, a cryoarithmatic engine right now is purely detrimental, but if it multiplied the reduction of the military base it was installed on, that'd scale the activity reductions to accommodate an extra source of danger.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 99