It would be nice to have the weapon type listed along side the role / mount size lines for easy browsing. By type I mean, kinetic, energy, etc. Overall looking good.
Yeah I was talking in game. I wasn't sure how directly the blog content was ripped from the game.
So...the game should be finished by next week, right? ;)
Personalities sound like they are going to be a lot of fun!
As for the secret feature...hmm. I know! Starfarer is going to be free 2 play MMO! ;D
As for the secret feature...hmm. I know! Starfarer is going to be free 2 play MMO! ;D
I’m happy to say that we’re going to be the first interview in QubeTubers IndieWeekend (http://qubetubers.com/indieweekend.php)!
We’ll be streaming the latest, in-development build of Starfarer, so this is your first chance to see some of the new features in action – in particular, the fleet command mechanics & interface.
The event starts at 8pm, and our interview is from 9-10pm EST. We’ll also be giving away a couple of Starfarer activation codes to viewers that ask particularly thought-provoking questions about the game, so if you’d like shot at a free copy of the game, do tune in!
interview was amazing! is this the place to post questions?
Might there be a way for those of us who missed the interview to watch a replay? :) I checked around on their website but couldn't find anything.
interview was amazing! is this the place to post questions?
Absolutely :)
Although the game would be great as a standalone sandbox strategy space shooter: Are there any plans to branch out into character personalities and drama?
How do you feel being able to disable ship systems could be balanced to avoid a tipping scale style of gameplay?
Great post, Alex. I love the effort you've put in to making piloting any individual ship a much more diverse and fun experience with these ship variants. I can't wait to customize my own. That'll be so wicked, making all the ships in my fleet support each other in an entirely unique way to achieve any given objective. Brilliant. This game of yours has so much potential. :)At the moment you can actually mod your own custom variants in; its pretty easy, just look at how the current variant files are written.
That reminds me, any idea on if we'll be able to name our own ship captains?
I guess this is one of the things that alpha and beta testing can help finetune, too!
I want to stay away from adding any extra UI elements – for example, ones showing you the exact status of every weapon and engine. It’s just too much information to keep track of in the heat of combat. Instead, there are distinct animations and floating text to let you know what’s happening, right there on the combat screen. We’ll also have some specific sound cues for the various events (“weapon disabled”, “flameout”, “repairs in progress”, etc) to make it as clear as possible what’s happening.
Request option toggle to disable said text.
QuoteI want to stay away from adding any extra UI elements – for example, ones showing you the exact status of every weapon and engine. It’s just too much information to keep track of in the heat of combat. Instead, there are distinct animations and floating text to let you know what’s happening, right there on the combat screen. We’ll also have some specific sound cues for the various events (“weapon disabled”, “flameout”, “repairs in progress”, etc) to make it as clear as possible what’s happening.
Request option toggle to disable said text.
I actually found the floating text to be horribly distracting. I'd like for a toggle as well - perhaps simply flashing / tinting modules would be a more elegant method of displaying which are disabled and which ones are active.
Probably yes. It's a question of "realism" (note the quotes), which is at odds with letting you rename people, vs it being a sandbox and a roleplay-your-own-adventure type of thing. I'm leaning strongly towards the latter.
New blog post up - What's Next? (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/09/29/whats-next/).
Not the most well known game, but it had a really good mechanic whereby the campaign progressed dynamically, and getting promotion got you the chance to transfer into more and more important commands.
Finally! Waiting this update for soo long)))
On the gripping hand... This means I'll have to wait longer before the next alpha release. Which means more time to try and construct a space dragon graphic that actually looks good before I get distracted by the next alpha release. Because clearly that's what's actually important here. ;-)
Will there be a stopgap release to give us the ship configurator-tronic screen?
Not the most well known game, but it had a really good mechanic whereby the campaign progressed dynamically, and getting promotion got you the chance to transfer into more and more important commands.
Sounds like an interesting take on mission-string style campaigns, if that's what it was.
october's blog comming out soon want to hear about how the start of the campain is comming along?
2 weeks of no news finally made me sign up :)
Is this one of the times when you feel you just have to add "one more feature!" before you're ready to talk about it? :D I know how that feels X3
Hehe, well 10 more after you iterate with a loop like this 10 times:
for (int i = 0; i < (i+1); i++) {//add new feature}
//then release progress update or next version
;D
Bulgarian blog post is best blog post!
Oh, right, a rather belated "here's a new blog post": Lore Spotlight: Factions and Worlds (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/10/22/lore-spotlight-factions-and-worlds/).
Oh, right, a rather belated "here's a new blog post": Lore Spotlight: Factions and Worlds (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/10/22/lore-spotlight-factions-and-worlds/).
Lol I love the reference in the blog post to Monty Python's Holy grail :p
Update in early November confirmed!
On the flip side to the player using auto-resolve for every battle, if there's a chance that the player will lose a ship to auto-resolve in a fight that they can clearly win without loss or harm
...
Above all, your system still poses the threat that a carrier or a battleship goes down to forces that shouldn't be able to accomplish such an act
If you let the player handle some aspect of auto-resolve in which they can look towards the more valuable assets of their fleet, I can see auto-resolve being much less of a programming nightmare.
Interesting to get a glimpse behind the scenes on this kind of feature. I wonder, how will your auto-resolver work with custom ships? I mean, not just the in-game hulls with custom loadouts, but modded-in completely new ships?
Maybe this is one of those rare games when I can use the auto-resolve option without suffering completely disproportionate losses and/or going @_@ at the results. :)
Interesting post. I look forward to this next release, whenever it may come. By Christmas, maybe? *hopeful look*
All sounds great. I never once used auto-resolve when my mercs were involved in Jagged Alliance 2, it was just too wacky.
My only problem is that you seem to have already thought of most things already.
... at least of the latest version we have to play with ;) ...
Yeah, the ships have been rebalanced a fair bit since then. As an example, all 4 of the Hammerhead's turrets are now small energy - instead of 2x medium ballistic + 2x medium energy.
I just don't think taking past player performance into account is going to work out well. It's hard to measure (what if you're good at specific things, such as fights vs fighter-heavy fleets? what if you're bad at piloting, but your strategic decisions make you do well in large battles?).
You're also creating an environment which punishes experimentation. Say you want to try out a new loadout - but you know that if it doesn't work well, you'll be punished for it in auto-resolve from here on out, until you erase that somehow (presumably, by "grinding" some wins to level it back up). That's powerful disincentive. Never mind that you'd need to have some visibility into the inner workings of that - i.e., what the system thinks of you.
Needless to say, 100% win rate for the Onslaught side - but a few wings of Talons tend to get taken out. That's quite reasonable assuming they got deployed, but it's not so reasonable to deploy them. Then again, that's not a very realistic setup to begin with - that battle should never happen, unless it's the player's Hammerhead that's set up to deliver a rude surprise to the Onslaught. Under other circumstances, the Hammerhead should hightail it at the earliest opportunity.
It's often the case that it will not resolve in the way that battles are fought, or in the way that the player will resolve the battle if he or she fought it manually.
Just curious as to why the Hammerhead doesn't hightail it at the earliest opportunity in the auto-resolve?
It would, but that's not the job of the autoresolve, which takes over when the battle is already joined. That battle would never happen in the first place if the Hammerhead was able to get away successfully. If it couldn't do that, then it would be an "escape" type battle, with the Hammerhead trying to get past the enemy lines and retreat - at which it would likely be successful. Even in a head-on fight, the 100% win rate for the Onslaught side includes numerous cases where the Hammerhead took too much damage and retreated.
It would, but that's not the job of the autoresolve, which takes over when the battle is already joined. That battle would never happen in the first place if the Hammerhead was able to get away successfully. If it couldn't do that, then it would be an "escape" type battle, with the Hammerhead trying to get past the enemy lines and retreat - at which it would likely be successful. Even in a head-on fight, the 100% win rate for the Onslaught side includes numerous cases where the Hammerhead took too much damage and retreated.
Sounds perfect then :-*
Heheh, thanks for your support!
To be fair, the jury is still out on how good it actually is - no amount of my testing is going to equal it getting some real usage. Hopefully it'll live up to expectations, if not, I'll tweak the hell out of it :)
Well there's only one way to find out!
Hint hint.
I presume there are a fair number of new weapons in now?
Is 5 fair? I think 5 is pretty fair. Up to 60 or so total.
Okay, nice! You've managed to, from the sound of it (since obviously none of us have been able to test it out i practice yet), find a solution to a game design problem that strikes the perfect balance between immersion, game mechanical significance and practicality.
Again.
You know, you've really got to stop doing this - don't you realise how bad you're make all the other developers out there look by comparison?! ;D
I'm just itching to start messing around with this. ;D
can you add the ability to name your ships so I can name mine the I.S.S unlikely-to-survive :p
I'm just itching to start messing around with this. ;D
One interesting implication of the system in question I can see is that as you decide the order in which ships are crewed with experienced personnel, there might be some interesting choices on whether you wish to crew, say, one cruiser or three frigates (or however the numbers work out in practice) with your elite personnel, or whether you want really hotshot fighter pilots, etc. All the choices, none of the tedious micro-management.
You'll be able to assign an officer to a fighter wing in the role of "wing leader" - so, yes and no :) Individual fighter pilots aren't modeled any more than individual crewmen.
The other aspect is you're more likely to lose crew that's, say, assigned to fighters - so while having elite fighter wings is (or should be - still working on the part where crew affects in-combat ship performance) great, you're taking a risk with the personnel.
Ok so my excitement level is really getting high here. :) Any chance we receive an updated preview client as a Christmas present? Or should I calm down and relax because I'm in for a longer wait? :) lol, this is gonna be so great when it is ready!
I was actually wondering about that - given the way fighters are replaced in-battle in the tactical battles, I was wondering if destroyed fighters would result in lost crew. On the other hand, it seemed logical, on the other... Well, the supply of fighters seems inexhaustible at present, so I was wondering if fighter pilots worked the same way.
I was actually wondering about that - given the way fighters are replaced in-battle in the tactical battles, I was wondering if destroyed fighters would result in lost crew. On the other hand, it seemed logical, on the other... Well, the supply of fighters seems inexhaustible at present, so I was wondering if fighter pilots worked the same way.
Ah, yes, that's definitely a potential inconsistency. Still considering how to resolve it, or if it needs resolving at all. It's just fun to have lots of fighters flying around, and I don't want to get in the way of that. Fighters will definitely use crew, though - except for drones, that is.
Hmm, I wonder if maybe Carriers/Freighters could have mods that allow extra crew to be carried, sort of like spare pilots for the new fighters that are created to replace destroyed ones? I would actually like it if carriers were limited in how many fighters they could replace and re-deploy by the crew that exists on the carrier itself to some degree, that way you would have to weigh the relative advantages to adding more crew space versus other mods like for armor and ammo etc, just a thought. :)
Hmm. That makes sense - it'd be easy enough to have a mod that raises the skeleton crew requirement of a ship and improves, say, the fighter refit speed. I like that idea a lot.
I do want to stay away from actually making carriers unable to refit fighters in combat when they run out of <something>, though - that poses a slew of UI problems. I suspect the initial player reaction upon seeing the carrier stop refitting fighters would be "ugh, my carrier is bugged", and it's an uphill battle to make what's happening clear.
Do crew members get experience outside battle? That is, could you have part of your fleet sitting in part of space protecting an outpost (for no other reason, let's call this place Chitzena). In the meantime, you are out kicking seven shades of the proverbial out of the evil queen's army over at somewhere-else-ville.
So, inevitably you lose a few ships so return to pick some up at Chitzena (because you like to operate with a lean force) and thankfully one of your officers (let's call her Ira) has been training your crew up from say green to regular, at a resource cost, while you have been gone.
Obviously I'm thinking about what Jagged Alliance 2 did with Militia (which was a different mechanic, but handled in a similar way, which made me think of this) but I could see that it might mitigate frustration associated with having lots of resources, yet potentially having to start from 'green' with each new ship.
Is there even going to this sort of 'sub-fleet' type of option (where you don't have direct control over them?
Would you expect them to be involved in enough scrapes to get them up in experience anyway?
What do you and Ivaylo want Santa to bring you for Christmas?
You'll be able to assign an officer to a fighter wing in the role of "wing leader" - so, yes and no :) Individual fighter pilots aren't modeled any more than individual crewmen.
Edit: that is to say, fighter pilots and "regular" crew members are the same thing.
Oh yeah and for Starfarer to become, and be considered, the best damned game, ever.
After all, you want to be punished for making poor decisions, not necessarily be able to recover without feeling any real loss (experienced crew would be a valuable resource and if you are in a position where you have all the other material wealth, it might make sense to really limit this).
I can't recommend JA2 to you, it's an awful game. Although perhaps you should check it out after you have finished Starfarer ;)
They didn't have a problem me sending some time to you, Alex, but the size and weight of the necessary containment field to make sure it didn't leak out all over the Atlantic Ocean was a bit cost prohibitive, postage-wise, I'm afraid.
Keep working on it and it may just become that, as far as I'm concerned. ;D Certainly it's at the top of my games anticipation list and the groundwork - both in the preview version we have now and what we've heard about the work going on at your end - is promising. Once the next preview version comes out and if it lives up to the promise of what we have so far, I intend to advertise it far and wide on the forums I go to and to any friends I have who might be interested in it.
(Why the next version? Because the beginning of the strategic mode implementation should make it a far more appealing taster than the current collection of single missions as well as additional depth.)
In that case, would there be roles or traits in which an officer would excel in the task of piloting one type of ship or another? I'm not asking about an all too specific bonus of several percentages when placed into a fighter or corvette for some abstract reason, but will there be traits that an officer can acquire that will give a predisposition in one sort of craft due to that craft's role in a tactical or strategic sense?
Cadet: "Captain, there's a hole in our ship!"Haha!
Captain: "Aye!!"
Cadet: "..."
Captain: :-*
Still, more ships can always be added in later. How's the campaign mode progressing?
Can't wait to see these in a campaign ... I hope that's progressing smoothly :D
I am starting to fall in love with this game. Love. LOVE!!! In a weird stalker sort of way.
Yep. It's moving along at a good clip - going to add save/load functionality soon. There's the larger "make it into a game" task, though - right now it's just a bunch of features, but that a game does not make.
Hmm.... not too well, I'm afraid :) You are right about the black ship being a cruiser, and about the civilian drones, though. The red ships aren't quite military - but not construction/repair, either.
Clearly they are fuel tankers. :)
Clearly they are fuel tankers. :)
*Ding ding ding ding ding* We have a winner!
Nice, I sure hope the tankers and munitions ships make the final cut and we see them in the game, I love details like that, and a legit supply chain of real ships would be an added wrinkle to manage and protect from pirates! :)
Tankers are in... well, the small-sized one is, and the others will follow eventually - fuel is a resource. Munitions got rolled up together with other stuff under "Supplies", though - the number of separate resources was getting to be a bit unmanageable.
you could just rename them "supply ships" could you not?
That's "freighters", though.
Also, this is something I began to wonder about after the last patch notes update. Is there navigable space "Inside" of a system between the moons and planets, or is it just you jump your fleets from site to site, and automatically engage anything that was in that spot before you? One of the reasons I ask, is if it is site to site jumping from moon to planet, etc with no navigable system space in-between, then how would one introduce something like a space station into the mix? Can't wait to see what you have cooked up in this regard! :)
What kind of a question is that??? Of course you'll be able to engage in piracy. To be fair, the lines between piracy, warfare, and "law enforcement" activity in the Sector are blurry at best.Also, this is something I began to wonder about after the last patch notes update. Is there navigable space "Inside" of a system between the moons and planets, or is it just you jump your fleets from site to site, and automatically engage anything that was in that spot before you? One of the reasons I ask, is if it is site to site jumping from moon to planet, etc with no navigable system space in-between, then how would one introduce something like a space station into the mix? Can't wait to see what you have cooked up in this regard! :)
You'll be able to navigate freely inside a system.
How open ended is the world going to be?
Meaning can i choose to be either an actual Pirate? A Mercenary? Ruler of a Empire or lone Carrier ship?
Just curious because you mention supply lines being raidable... but it's not really piracy when you're the ruler of an entire empire/fleet.
No, then it's called "privateering". ;)
I believe the intention has been described as "Mount and Blade with starships".
I think I'm the one who started throwing that phrase around, so I'll point out that while Alex thought the allusion was a good one, those weren't his words.
Clearly they are fuel tankers. :)
*Ding ding ding ding ding* We have a winner!
I think I'm the one who started throwing that phrase around, so I'll point out that while Alex thought the allusion was a good one, those weren't his words.
Entirely possible. I don't expect it to be a fully accurate description either, but it's a convenient shorthand explanation to establish a baseline for expectations.
Am I the only one who wants to ram one of these things into an Onslaught and pray that Alex programmed them to be very EXPLODEY.
I'm not sure how cost effective that would be though :D
New post is up: Battle Plan (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/12/22/battle-plan/).
What's done, what's not, what's next. Things like that.
...and what I’ll be doing over the coming weeks...
Quote from: Blogpost...and what I’ll be doing over the coming weeks...
Only weeks now! Wooo! ;D
More seriously - obviously, I'd be interested in helping out with the preview version.
Gotta be careful with that numbering system. There's only so much space between 0.5 and 1.0 ;)
Thanks guys!
Note that I did not say when in January. Because I don't actually know.
As far as the version numbers, can always hit up the irrational numbers if it gets desperate. Version sqrt(2)a, anyone?
Oops, I meant (sqrt(2)/2)a, to fit into the 0.5-1 range :) Taking a poor joke too far - that's what I do.
Also, I wish a Happy Christmas, and Merry Holidays to you! ;D
Even still, waiting to january 31st would still be about 6 weeks, which isn't that bad, especially considering that's a fraction of the time we've already waited.
Can we at least get some screens of the new weapons? :D
...
and maybe the csv's displaying the fleetpoint values of ships and weapons? (mostly to get a better idea of how we should pre-emptively balance stuff)
Even still, waiting to january 31st would still be about 6 weeks, which isn't that bad, especially considering that's a fraction of the time we've already waited.
That. Besides, good things are worth waiting for.
Ah ok, so balance probably won't be set in stone until the actual .5a? (not .5a-pre)
About what I expected, based on what's been said before. Will be interesting to test it out in practice once the next release comes out but it sounds good on the face of it.
How is ammo handled in this game? Is it a part of 'supplies'?
Assorted supplies required by ships and crew, ranging from food and clothing to munitions, spare parts, and prefab building components.
Yeah. Both repair parts and munitions conceptually fall under "Supplies", which are a very broadly-defined item. At one point I was thinking of having both of those be separate but then, thankfully, regained a measure of sanity.
Funny thing is, I would have loved to see Ammo as a seperate resource. But then again, I'm certified to visit Loonyville. ;)
That, among with some related things, is likely to be the subject of a future blog post. The solution I've got in mind is a little unorthodox, so I'd like to make sure it actually works before blabbing about it :)
Ok, another question then. How do you restock fighters? Even in the best battle (say a 97% one I just now won) you tend to lose a handful of fighters. Are they the type of thing that you can readily manufacture whilst out and about? Would a series of 97% victories be a boon in terms of rewards and resources of a war of attrition as I lose irreplaceable assets a little at a time?
Ok, another question then. How do you restock fighters? Even in the best battle (say a 97% one I just now won) you tend to lose a handful of fighters. Are they the type of thing that you can readily manufacture whilst out and about? Would a series of 97% victories be a boon in terms of rewards and resources of a war of attrition as I lose irreplaceable assets a little at a time?
If you actually lose an entire wing, they're gone. If any make it, then the wing is restored to full strength. That's how it works right now, anyway. I'm not entirely happy with a lack of a good in-fiction explanation here, but may just have to bite the bullet.
Considering that apparently you can lose 5 out of 6 fighters in a wing and re-build them mid-fight, you'd think the fighters should be easily to obtain
If you actually lose an entire wing, they're gone. If any make it, then the wing is restored to full strength. That's how it works right now, anyway. I'm not entirely happy with a lack of a good in-fiction explanation here, but may just have to bite the bullet.
Yeah, that's the part I'm not happy with. After all, if you can do that, what's to stop you from cranking out many, many wings? The only explanation I can come up with is it has something to do with the fighter blueprint - there's a "field blueprint" embedded in each fighter, which allows a carrier's mini-fac to crank out replacements, but the blueprint automatically deactivates when a wing is brought to full strength. The "master blueprint" for fighters allows the manufacture of new fighter wings, but requires a full-blown auto-factory. I can kind of see this being done by the Domain as an arms-control measure.
As far as replacing losses, fighters shouldn't be any harder to replace then ships, and they ought to be a lot cheaper - at least the light ones.
...
Kinda hard to explain why those 'reserve' fighters don't simply form a new wing of the old one is destroyed though. Perhaps that could be explained by stating that every active squad is led by a squadron leader and that forming a new squad on-the-fly from many different elements just wouldn't work under battlefield conditions. Or at least, not effective enough. But there are quite some holes in this theory of mine. :)
Maybe the technology is in such poor shape that carriers need some part of the collective AI of the fighter wing to survive in order to build more of them? That being said, it still doesn't quite explain out of the way why the sides just can't produce crappy fighters en masse.
in that case, it seems that the pilot skill could become a factor in determining how many ships make it back. if the only ship left has a novice pilot, he wouldn't be able to wrestle as many ships back as an experienced one.
I know what you mean, I was sad to see "Munitions" go. At one point, I was thinking to have "Parts & Machinery", "Supplies", and "Munitions" all be separate resources but... well, they all fit under the heading of "things you need to recover after combat", and making the player keep track of stocking up on all those just seemed cruel.
Edit: It might make sense to do if there was a reason to stock up on more of one vs the other, if that was a meaningful choice - but at this point, it'd just be adding complexity without getting a return on it.
Supllies and munitions should be separate resource, not all ship have military equipment. For example attacking civilian ships should give only few munitions as loot, while low tech warship many. It would be too much to have different munitions for each type of weapon. Manage post-combat results is part of the fun, is not a burden.
I agree; if you have both, the game makes a lot more sense. You cited the final reason you decided against having both munitions and supplies as it would be two different things that the player needs to have enough of to keep at the status-quo. Well, you can offset that by giving incentives/rewards for having surplus munitions and supplies. If you have lots of supplies, the reward is what's already being used: building new stuff. Lots of munitions on the other hand: perhaps combat bonuses to ballistic weapons (reload rate, etc.) or missiles/torpedoes (damage) for a munitions cost, amongst other things.
well by that argument, fuel could be considered as part of "supplies" as well. ;)
Perhaps he has something in mind in which fuel has a special role on the strategic level where supplies isn't?
So, fuel determines how far you can go, while supplies determine how long you can stay on the field.
well by that argument, fuel could be considered as part of "supplies" as well. ;)Perhaps he has something in mind in which fuel has a special role on the strategic level where supplies isn't?
Heheh, you certainly could :) But there are significant differences between fuel and munitions which in my mind warrant one but not the other being separate.
For one, fuel is concerned with hyperspace movement only, and its consumption isn't related to combat or in-system movement. So, fuel determines how far you can go, while supplies determine how long you can stay on the field. Munitions (without additional mechanics), would introduce an additional layer of "how much you can fight" depending on weapons you have. Except that supplies, being used for repairs, also play that role. You could break it down further into "how much damage taken you can repair" (supplies) vs "how much you can fight" (munitions). That, to me, is getting too fine-grained.
Also, fuel adds a higher level strategic concern - movement among star systems - and, since that part isn't implemented yet, there's plenty of room to give it an even more meaningful role without retrofitting existing mechanics.
You could just go with the Battletech solution (or a common varient): you can jump wherever you want up to 50ly but then you need to sit at your destination for a couple of days while you recharge your drive with solar energy. The fuel is completely free and collection can be abstracted to something that can happen without player input, but there's a rational in-universe explanation for why ship ranges are limited.
Why don't they just make the ships bigger, or bring tankers that would carry fuel to their next jump point, dump it to the fleet, and then have the tankers recharge? It seems horribly convoluted. If they can put all that armor, guns, and fighters into a workable ship, I believe it's quite possible for them to scrap most of that and just build a tanker or reactor ship for fuel. It's several days of waiting around we're talking about here.
That is of course, unless the jump drive gets prohibitively more expensive as the sizes go up or its area of displacement can only be made so big. But even then, tankers are quite possible.
c) The nature of the drive itself means that you have to charge it up slowly or it breaks.
(This post is totally tangential; feel free to ignore it if you aren't interested in battletech setting stuff.)c) The nature of the drive itself means that you have to charge it up slowly or it breaks.
This was the part I found silly. The game had rules for how to do an emergency jump recharge from the ship's reactor - which was potentially far faster than charging from solar power, but could also break your drive. Except that, if you performed an "emergency recharge" at the same rate as solar power would have charged your jump drive... the chance of failure dropped to zero. Which meant that the entire solar charging mechanism was superfluous.
a) Yes, you can take enough energy in a fuel cell but those things are ridiculously rare/expensive.
c) The nature of the drive itself means that you have to charge it up slowly or it breaks.
This problem doesn't seem to be technologically related, it seems to be a logistical one. One of which can be solved simply by using what people already have in a manner that's actually effective.
This problem doesn't seem to be technologically related, it seems to be a logistical one. One of which can be solved simply by using what people already have in a manner that's actually effective.
I don't think you 'get' diaspora settings.
...
ps: Just imagine the pilot lounge in such a carrier: rows of bains in jar on shelves exchanging completely uncomprehensible jokes while waiting for the next fight^^
There's technically a new blog post up. But only technically.
Hmm, for some strange reason I have a strong feeling there will be a new blog post today, odd. :o
Hmm, for some strange reason I have a strong feeling there will be a new blog post today, odd. :o
You realise, of course, that now that you've aired this thought that if you should prove to be wrong, I will feel burning resentment towards you? :D
I'm afraid there's burning resentment in your future(s) :)
Nope, I'm fine with being wrong, I'll just have to worry about avoiding Thana's wrath. :) ha ha
Nope, I'm fine with being wrong, I'll just have to worry about avoiding Thana's wrath. :) ha ha
In the orbit or the Moon, noon tomorrow, Mjolnir cannons. Be there. ;)
Hmm, well you see, you have just handed me the only thing I require to "avoid" your wrath, a time and a place, thusly, I will be elsewhere at an elsetime. ;D
looking at that screenshot, i was reminded of something that has been bugging me.
the UI there is very unbalance, everything is piled in the left corner, and there is almost nothing in the right corner. moving the weapon display to the right corner would possibly fix this.
anyway, just something to think about. perhaps I will make a more in depth topic about this later.
I actually kind of like that you can see everything you need by just looking into one corner of the screen.
I also agree; its efficient design to get all the information in a single glance, rather than having to have your eyes dart all over the screen.looking at that screenshot, i was reminded of something that has been bugging me.
the UI there is very unbalance, everything is piled in the left corner, and there is almost nothing in the right corner. moving the weapon display to the right corner would possibly fix this.
anyway, just something to think about. perhaps I will make a more in depth topic about this later.
I actually kind of like that you can see everything you need by just looking into one corner of the screen.
A toggleable minimap might be nice over in the right.I agree :DI mentioned this before but I think they said something like that current mapping system thing (where everything is indicated on the screen border) suits the game more. I agree with this but it'd still be nice if you could toggle between them.
think this might be a mistake in the january Archives on the main site the post about the WTF starfarar by TB the youtube link goes to Starfarer Dev - Collision Avoidance AI Demo not the WTF video.
although i did enjoy rewatching it again.
got a link to the new one ?Wait... there's a new one? O.o
Is there going to be another blog post soon? I'm a real sucker for concept art and lore....
Been too busy with bugfixing and getting the next "maintenance" release ready. Have a couple of things I want to write about, but... :)
would u kindly tease us about what's on this "maintenance release"? ;D
would u kindly tease us about what's on this "maintenance release"? ;D
maintenance stuff... so... bug fixes and stuff lol
would u kindly tease us about what's on this "maintenance release"? ;D
maintenance stuff... so... bug fixes and stuff lol
yea i know it's going to be bugfixes, but im hoping there's going to be some balancing as well. besides, if it's only bugfixes, there's bugs that i want to be fixed before others.
Now, I have been one in the past to beg for a hotfix release, but this time, I would like to ask a serious "why?"
It depends on what you mean by "hotfix". To me it means a release within a day or two to address game-breaking issues. Something like a random and frequent crash, for example, would qualify.
What I'm aiming to do now is make a release within a week (or two, on the outside) - with a bunch of bug fixes and some feature improvements. Since I'm in the middle of some of those right now, yeah, it'd be something of a pain to cut a build (before someone chimes in about code branching - I'm familiar) - but more importantly, I don't think there's anything that can't wait a week or so.
Plus, I do so love "torturing the anxious people" :)
Iiiiiinteresting. Regarding this philosophy of avoiding 'hard limits', will there be a similar application of thoughts in regards to undercrewed ships? Make it slower, aim worse, maybe some batteries won't fire...?
Iiiiiinteresting. Regarding this philosophy of avoiding 'hard limits', will there be a similar application of thoughts in regards to undercrewed ships? Make it slower, aim worse, maybe some batteries won't fire...?
Hmm good ideas. To follow up on this, what about having autofire disabled and battle repair (weapons and engine) taking longer?
I like the idea. I'm curious as to how varied the different types of accidents will be. I understand they'll be different in the amount of losses, but I'm more interested in the scenarios that those losses occur in. Even though they're supposedly rare, it would be kind of annoying to see "a jury-rigged cargo container's magnetic coupling asploded" every other accident.
Maybe something like "Some idiot threw his cigarette into a trash bin that was converted to hold fuel, and the ship exploded."
I'm most curious about how fighter capacity limits would work. I was under the impression fighters wouldn't be capable of light speed travel and therefor needed to be carried in larger ships. If we can go over our fighter count with a risk of an accident would we still be able to use light speed? I assume accidents for this case would be most likely when you were preparing for light speed. Ex: "While trying to cram 30 fighters into a tiny hanger in order to jump to light speed there was a huge accident." or "Make-shift fighter lightspeed drive utterly failed and exploded."
Or will you still be unable to go light speed with too many fighters AND there be random accidents occurring?
My primary question is: Will there be a way to store weapons/cargo in general somewhere else? My personal problem is, that my fleet carries a lot of weapons with it and thats the main reason why it exceeds the cargo limit. But simply selling it, does not seem to be a good idea, since some of the weapons are quiet rare to find. And if I wanted them back, I had to buy them again, which would be quiet a nuisance. I would prefer to have a orbital space station, that lets you buy space to store weapons and cargo.
Is there something like that planed for future updates?
In the deploy screen you could add a nice, big icon to the ship indicating that it's understaffed, with a tooltip explaining the consequence.Iiiiiinteresting. Regarding this philosophy of avoiding 'hard limits', will there be a similar application of thoughts in regards to undercrewed ships? Make it slower, aim worse, maybe some batteries won't fire...?
Hmm good ideas. To follow up on this, what about having autofire disabled and battle repair (weapons and engine) taking longer?
Interesting indeed. My concern would be adequately explaining why things in battle don't work, without them looking like bugs (hey, why is autofire/this gun/the port engines not working?).
In the deploy screen you could add a nice, big icon to the ship indicating that it's understaffed, with a tooltip explaining the consequence.
Will these sort of limits be applied to anything else? (e.g. you can go over a ship's OP but you run the risk of losing weapons or blowing up the ship...)
What do you mean by staffing? You can fight understaffed...No. If you are below skeleton crew you do not fight in battle. I wouldn't fly an under-crewed ship into battle. Sounds like suicide. Better to jump the escape pods and get outta there.
Going over ship OP
well I was thinking that accidents that come from going over a ship's OP would affect you during combat (with risk being related to how high you go over). So if you want to do gamble on this alot you would be running a huge risk in the short and long term Short term you run the risk of having your ship becoming useless in the middle of battle (because of using too big a weapon that destroys the ship, crew deaths, becomes overloaded too quickly or the ship runs out of power). Long term you can lose ships and weapons. It may also require repairs to make the ship usable again.
At the risk of being annoying... Alex, any idea when the next release is? ;)
I'm going to make another release soon(ish).
Actually, there is no need to have fuel over the cap. Just blow surplus fuel into space if you lose some crafts.You could say this about any excess. That's no fun though. Accidents is much more fun. :)
Actually, there is no need to have fuel over the cap. Just blow surplus fuel into space if you lose some crafts.You could say this about any excess. That's no fun though. Accidents is much more fun. :)
"We're over cap on living quarters, time to jettison the green crew into space."That's what the redshirts are for :)
FP limit is now getting enforced? Can that get held off until after we can split our fleet/store our ships?
Pretty sure Alex said this one won't be save-game compatible with the old one anyway, so it's new fleet time in any case!
Going over ship OP
well I was thinking that accidents that come from going over a ship's OP would affect you during combat (with risk being related to how high you go over). So if you want to do gamble on this alot you would be running a huge risk in the short and long term Short term you run the risk of having your ship becoming useless in the middle of battle (because of using too big a weapon that destroys the ship, crew deaths, becomes overloaded too quickly or the ship runs out of power). Long term you can lose ships and weapons. It may also require repairs to make the ship usable again.
Ah, I see. So you could say, then, there's a "Malfunction" chance for every weapon (and the engines) if the ship is over OP - would be the same as being disabled, but random. Which sounds reasonable, but I suspect it'd be more annoying/frustrating than not - I can see reloads over a loss caused by an untimely engine malfunction. Might work, of course, just saying what my reservations are.
Besides, there's no driving force to do this, other than copying the accidents mechanic (which exists for different reasons!). Still, I have to admit it's an intriguing idea.
dont you know Alex is really Supreme Chancellor Palpatine in disguise. :P (insert insidious laugh here)
I want to store ships which haven't been smashed up though. How unsightly.Indeed.
"We're over cap on living quarters, time to jettison the green crew into space."
*Snip*
this game dont need anything random driven, skill shoud not be replaced by random rolls, if weapon deals 100 damage it shoud always deal 100 damage if user managed to score hit.
if you go over ship OP by any means ship shoud suffer constant penalty to its stats, not random based.
ballistic weapons definely shoud suffer by ammo size and attack speed decrease, with more flux consumption.
energy weapons shoud deal less damage.
engines shoud provide less speed.
also more generic debuffs like more damage taken, less armor and hull intergity, every debuff shoud be obvious to user without anything random, if 1 OP overload have -10% engine speed, it shoud have this penalty at any scenario.
also viable penalty to reqire more creew, up to 100% of ship crew (medusa with X OP overload shoud consume full 50 crew as skeleton crew)
Debuffs shoud have exponent based effect, more OP you burrow more penalty you will take, at some point penalty shoud surely obsolete effects of anything user install on ship, no matter what.
Additional weapon over some OP shoud provide such penalty, that overal DPS decrease if this weapon is installed.
Also something like mountpoints overload will be great, ability to install large weapons at medium slot will allow hurge number of additional tactical solutions (with penalty like 2x OP cost, hurge debuff in turn speed and flux consumption to prevent "press x to win" options)
(medusa with single plasma cannot and nothing else due OP limit will be nice support ship, but due hurge penalty it will be able to shot only single time without venting, in this case overal DPS will be decreased compared to pair of blasters, but aniway user shoud be allowed to do something stupid as this)
(also vice versa, small weapons installed in medium mounts shoud have bonuses)
I think RawCode was not talking about the Accidents system at all, but rather the idea that was brought up of going over the OP limit, for the penalty of random weapon/engine malfunctions.
I also think he brings up some good points :)
One question: Why wouldn't everyone run their ships at 149% all the time? There probably should be some minor, predictable, consequences.
but I think that losing a ship will make it unfun... :pBut it ONLY happens if you are outside the limits of what your fleet is supposed to handle. The ship loss scenario will ONLY ONLY happen if you are over fleet points by a significant margin.
That makes it your fault not the game's fault. This is just a different way of handling limits than a hard limit. It's more freeing, but more risky. It's easy to play with a hard limit as you can just self-police.
That makes it your fault not the game's fault. This is just a different way of handling limits than a hard limit. It's more freeing, but more risky. It's easy to play with a hard limit as you can just self-police.
I think my point is basically that whose fault it is doesn't matter. Players will feel like they've been kicked in the gut by the random number generator any time they suffer a low-probability, high-impact event, as opposed to, say, a series of exponentially worse low-impact events.
But I'm certainly willing to try it and see if I'm wrong. It's an alpha, after all.
I think my point is basically that whose fault it is doesn't matter. Players will feel like they've been kicked in the gut by the random number generator any time they suffer a low-probability, high-impact event, as opposed to, say, a series of exponentially worse low-impact events.But it's so easy to avoid them. Just stay under the limits. And the limit is half over what the limits say they are. It's incredibly forgiving (forgiving sounding at the least, wish I could test it). Much more so than hard limits that would not just kick you in the gut, but kick you in the gut repeatedly after you've already hit the ground.
2. Due to a variety of psychological factors, human beings do a bad job planning for random low-probability, high-impact events. As such, rare but huge accidents, like losing a whole ship, are just not going to be fun. It can be totally justified, it can be realistic, and it can be the player's own fault, but it's never going to make your average player happy. Unless by "ship" you mean "a fighter or two out of a squadron", I'd drop it. There's a really high risk it'll be unfun, even though it's a "consequence" of a player's decision. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong in playtesting, though...
Just curious, but how far off do you think character levelling is? I'm really looking forward to how it affects things.
Just curious, but how far off do you think character levelling is? I'm really looking forward to how it affects things.
Sorry - soon(tm) :)
However, having read the blog, I do understand this is meant to deal with the problem of what if you lose a ship and now you're over the hard limit? I don't know but I guess maybe the player has to choose something to leave behind... its a hard one to work out what to do, but I think that losing a ship will make it unfun... :p
This will be unfortunate for people who like modding battle size...
This will be unfortunate for people who like modding battle size...
As a strong a devotee of big battles, it's highly unfortunate. :-\ I'm still pondering ways to safely accomplish same once 0.52 goes public, but haven't yet thought of anything solid. [-wistful sigh-]
The events aren't low-probability - they're high-probability. It's not the kind of thing where you forget that you're over capacity, and then 15 minutes later, boom, accident. If it's the critical kind, it's going to happen within a few game days - i.e., less than a minute real-time. So, once you're at around 200%, it's very close to being a hard cap, without the UI nuisance of being one. Between 150 and 200, the accidents are severe enough to let you know that you ought to do something about it, but not on the "lost a ship" level.
There's going to be an occasional case where running the risk of an accident may be worth the payoff, but it won't be something you're doing often, or for long.
In general, I agree with your point - but I don't think the actual implementation is going to have this problem, because it's not actually asking the player to manage the risk of a long-term, low-probability, and high impact event. We'll see how it plays out, though.
I wonder, skid, if you'd be this negative if Alex had made Rawcode's changes, and Rawcode had suggested the accident system. It's not an idea I like, but it's not terrible enough to be put down like -that-.
But people are going to want the option to -
I don't get the reason why the Developers of a game should give a flying f**k of what the players *want*. They make the game, the game has rules, it's really easy. If Alex and the others don't plan to make that variable moddable (as many other variables that aren't) they won't.
Sorry, don't want to sound like a ***, but I'm pretty *** off about what's happening on the Bioware Social Network. Fans Entitlement is getting a lot of hate from my point of view.
First of all, calm down both of you. There's no need to drop the F bomb.
Personally I think we the players have a right to be heard and have our concerns addressed, if only because Alex has made clear his intent to accept player input. As for Mass Effect 3, it's the developer's choice, and if they chose to listen to their fans that too is their choice.
A game should be created as fun in the developers image. If others enjoy it: so much the better.
I wouldn't say that the players have the "right" to be heard, yes it's rather expected these days, but the developers don't have to do anything about it. While I do like how the players are listened to, I really despise it when players think they should be treated like special little snowflakes because they chose to pay money for something. They weren't forced to, and they aren't forced to play it.
Yeah, my posts were pretty much OT. I'm sorry. I rest my case, no offence or anything intended.
In the end i like this game because it have it's very personality and it's going his own (a little hardcore) way, so I'm pretty much satisfied.
But people are going to want the option to roll around for fun in 200 FP fleets. If the accidents are hard-coded in, you won't even be able to use your 200 FP fleet in a modded out "Sandbox" mode. It'd be a pretty big damper.
Also, will accidents affect NPC fleets?
I wouldn't say that the players have the "right" to be heard, yes it's rather expected these days, but the developers don't have to do anything about it. While I do like how the players are listened to, I really despise it when players think they should be treated like special little snowflakes because they chose to pay money for something. They weren't forced to, and they aren't forced to play it.
They absolutely have the 'right' in the sense that anyone could post commentary about any game to express their opinion (in a few years... we'll see), but you are absolutely right that players ought not demand special treatment.
I would bet big money that a custom battle is on the radar. It's just on the radar for after campaign features.
That said I would also really like custom battles, haha. It would be a lot of fun to test our crazy variants and stuff.
Yessss...
and arena function in campaign would be pretty damn awesome!
It would be a great way to make money, but Imo should be limited to destroyers and frigates.
And a bit of info about when to expect the 0.52a release.
[-spoiler redacted-]
New blog post is up: Dev Update, Achievements (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/04/22/dev-update-achievements/).
Features me trying to overcome personal preferences to take an objective look at achievements, and a link to the dev path notes (mostly for the folks that visit the website, but not the forum).
And a bit of info about when to expect the 0.52a release.Spoiler(It's: soontm)[close]
You charming rogue. ::)
My take on this is that it's unnecessary in progression heavy games like Starfarer because the game keeps track of your progress already. Especially once character leveling comes in and ships become harder to procure.
My take on this is that it's unnecessary in progression heavy games like Starfarer because the game keeps track of your progress already. Especially once character leveling comes in and ships become harder to procure.
...
Thoughtful post.
...
Then once that ship turns to dust you're back at square one :P
Something else, have any of you guys player gracious space battles? (I suppose some of you must have done...)I've played it, those reports got repetitive and meaningless.
But one thing i really liked about that game were those "reports", that you got as a battle progressed and ships got damaged and defeated/damaged other ships... needless to say i think that a system like this would be "most excellent".
It would also help give you a rough idea of whats going on in a fight without having to check the map all the time.
But i not sure that such a thing would really fit the way command points work...
Something else, have any of you guys player gracious space battles? (I suppose some of you must have done...)I've played it, those reports got repetitive and meaningless.
But one thing i really liked about that game were those "reports", that you got as a battle progressed and ships got damaged and defeated/damaged other ships... needless to say i think that a system like this would be "most excellent".
It would also help give you a rough idea of whats going on in a fight without having to check the map all the time.
But i not sure that such a thing would really fit the way command points work...
You don't need developer created goals and popups to give you a gold star.
Something else, have any of you guys player gracious space battles? (I suppose some of you must have done...)I've played it, those reports got repetitive and meaningless.
But one thing i really liked about that game were those "reports", that you got as a battle progressed and ships got damaged and defeated/damaged other ships... needless to say i think that a system like this would be "most excellent".
It would also help give you a rough idea of whats going on in a fight without having to check the map all the time.
But i not sure that such a thing would really fit the way command points work...
I agree on that.Starfarer doesn't need it. Ships have health bars and armor damage is visible on ships graphics. Health is also shown on the map screen in combat, fighters in wings that are destroyed also show up as blacked out.
that is why i think that if such a system was ever to be included in starfarer, i think it should be purely informative E.g.:
The Onslaught - >ship name< - is under fire by the Aurora - >ship name< - .
Obviously it could be reworded, but its just a simple example of the sort of thing i would like to see.
But at least you would know that you might need to :P
As apposed to facepalming when ship X explodes
But at least you would know that you might need to change orders, or come to the rescue :P
As apposed to facepalming when ship X explodes
Maybe, although it seems to me that when a ship mismatch occurs, once the first shots have been fired you are already screwed.
But at least you would know that you might need to change orders, or come to the rescue :P
As apposed to facepalming when ship X explodes
Maybe, although it seems to me that when a ship mismatch occurs, once the first shots have been fired you are already screwed.
I guess I'd just prefer to keep UI clutter away. I don't want to be staring at "I'M UNDER ATTACK!" from my ships when I'd rather be watching my Paragon shoot rainbow lasers of love at baddies.Nurse!
Has there been any word on how much (if at all) the combat UI is going to change before release? Especially later on with bigger fleets I find myself giving command over to the second-in-command of my flagship and concentrate on ordering, or at least observing, my fleet. The current UI doesn't really lend itself to that too well, one ship at a time and overall it's quite hard to keep track on two cruiser fights on different cap points, couple more fighter/frigate capping..
Having a few picture-in-picture view screens or a bit more robust system could make that a more fluent experience.
These pills ain't having any effect!
With all the balance changes and discussion of relative power in each patch, I'm curious if everything is going to need to be rebalanced when the sandbox-campaign opens up? Concerns a fleet-commander might have will likely change the relative importance of everything from the obvious (cargo space, fuel use) to the maybe-not-so-obvious (shield strength minimizes repair resource use, survivability maybe more important than damage output, etc), to things we won't see until play-testing, no?
Multiplayer has been brought up a few times, There won't be any multiplayer and the reason is that multiplayer and singleplayer experiences are fundamentally different, so it would tons of work to do it right and the MP/SP would end up being different games anyway. That and singleplayer isn't even near completion right now, personally i'd rather us get a nice complete campaign mode before multiplayer is ever even considered. Though coop might be fun :P.
Steam only publishes released games, this is at .50 alpha so its not really up to that point yet and even then steam likes to say "we already have many similar games to yours, you need to prove this can sell/is different" so its unknown whether they will let starfarer in or not.
But I digress, this is very neat :D oh oh will the buffalo get flares to help them last 5 more seconds? :P
butbut! you didn't use the infernium injector in the video :(
But I digress, this is very neat :D oh oh will the buffalo get flares to help them last 5 more seconds? :P
That wasn't the infernium thingy, that was the "Burn Drive" system. :Dbutbut! you didn't use the infernium injector in the video :(
But I digress, this is very neat :D oh oh will the buffalo get flares to help them last 5 more seconds? :P
Ohhh yes he did. Did you see that Onslaught move?!? This might make me actually use an Onslaught now!
Will these systems be able to be disabled?Good question.
Can they be enhanced with hull mods?
PLEASE can the Hound get the burn drive? (I'm laughing just thinking about it.)
Vandala, that sounds like Tachyon Lance level of imbalance ;) It'd be cool I guess... But I'd prefer submarines to teleporting ships in terms of getting somewhere without being stopped.Yeah, I just combined the two... man I so want this. Think of the POWER!
As for getting somewhere instantly, that's what fast ships are for.
Burn Drives will make Onslaughts useful ;D And, you know, make facing them be describable as facing an 'onslaught'.
I want my Odyssey combat teleporter!!
Unless it gets something even better, but I can't think of anything better right now.
EDIT: I'm thinking, in combat, you pull up the map-screen, you click on your Odyssey, you activate its ability, you click somewhere on the map and BAMN you are there instantly!
Man that would be awesome, probably have to put a limit of once or twice per battle only on its uses though, kind of a powerful ability as first sight. Even if it doesn't directly do anything for direct combat prowess.
EDIT: Oh man I was so wrong, this will definably mean direct improvement of combat prowess. Imagine two Odyssey's teleporting within Tachyon Lance range of the enemy fleet almost at start-up. Man that must be terrifying.
Also, WTB: maneuvering jets for my Conquest.
Will these systems be able to be disabled?
Can they be enhanced with hull mods?
PLEASE can the Hound get the burn drive? (I'm laughing just thinking about it.)
Will the flares confuse missiles not targeting the craft being tracked by missiles?
Will the speed boost from the burn drive stack with other speed bonuses (nav beacons and "no flux" bonuses)?
so they tele all of 5 feet.....on the technical side that is fairly impressive (cause FTLing 5 feet is a much more daunting task than FTLing 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000 feet when you already know how to do the latter) on the scaryness side, not so much.
whats scary is 2 odysseys fully armed with plasma cannons and anti-matter blasters coming out of a teleport, now that's a broadside.
I vote for radar jammers and stasis webifiers next as ship systems! :)
I could also see things like cutter devices that deal massive damage on contact or radius or ners that massively boost the detection radius or a ship that can detach parts as stationary gun platforms or jettison armor to increase maneuverability. Or a ship that camouflages itself as another ship (That's no Buffalo Mk2!) or a big-ass weapon that is simply part of a special weapon ship or a shield projector that can cover other ships...
I vote for radar jammers and stasis webifiers next as ship systems! :)
Only if I can get my energy neutralizers and tracking disruptors... and cloaking device for my pilgrimHey! Both of you! It's my ideas sent to Alex 100 years ago!
Tractor Beams - to catch ships and bring them closer to you.
Lockdown Modules & Stasis Webifiers - modules to slowdown/stop enemy ships.
Weapon Disruptors - decreases weapon range and accuracy.
Stealth Devices - hides ships from radar, but not from eye.
Cloaking Devices - hides your ships from enemy. Uncloaks (or not, depends from device) when starts shooting.
Scanners - to scan the ships for additional information or for cloaked ships.
Scramblers - to resist scanning (scanner strength vs scrambler strength)
Missile Jammers - jams the missiles from course or even redirects it back at enemy.
Damage Over Time - something like acid on the ships hull, or sprayed in space waiting for victim.
Remote Repair Systems - that can temporary fix ships hull.
Energy Focus Systems - ship A transfers its energy/flux regen to ship B to increase its weapon output.
Alex, you've said these system can't be disabled, but can they be suppressed by other subsystems?I vote for radar jammers and stasis webifiers next as ship systems! :)Only if I can get my energy neutralizers and tracking disruptors... and cloaking device for my pilgrimHey! Both of you! It's my ideas sent to Alex 100 years ago!
Can't say I didn't think about my Mimnatarr lady when I read Stasis Webifiers ::)
I took down *many* battleships.But you never took down Rifter with Chimera :P
Back on topic, I'm a little leery of ship systems doing things to other ships, especially negative things. Most ship systems we've seen have provided some kind of benefit to the ship using them. I mean, I'm not adverse to the occasional "fixed" hull-only weapon, but crazy stuff like shutting down an opponent's engines just rubs me the wrong way.So far we have yet to see anything like that. There is probably no need to worry.
...but our CEO was going near insane in our preparations for the battle...Damn, I thought you were the CEO! ;D
.. was his name tim?Mittani :P
bluh, mmos
Surprised that no version notes thread has gone up for .53a yet... :(
bluh, mmos
Surprised that no version notes thread has gone up for .53a yet... :(
Means you want to say the same thing. Kinda stupid to say it over again. ;D
Kinda stupid to say it over again. ;DAnd just quoting it is better because...?
And just quoting it is better because...?I really have no idea. I'll admit I just saw it one day here and decided to do it.
And just quoting it is better because...?
:)
Not trying to hate, btw. Just thought it was ironic. We are avoiding repeating things by repeating them verbatim instead, haha.
You know, you can always add your own personal point of view, your examples that support the point and so on and so forth. At least you can show you're able to develop your own opinions, not only depend on the others.:)
Not trying to hate, btw. Just thought it was ironic. We are avoiding repeating things by repeating them verbatim instead, haha.
Just had to. ;D
Haha, it's not taking that long. It'll take a while to code in all those systems and adjust the ai to be aware of them.
A good read, and the screenshots were nice.
Quick question: Do the PD drones hover within shield range if they aren't engaging anything?
Is the Omen's EMP blast an area of effect or does it hit one target at a time?Looks to be one at a time, but rate of fire is probably pretty high.
Is the Omen's EMP blast an area of effect or does it hit one target at a time?Looks to be one at a time, but rate of fire is probably pretty high.
Is the Omen feeling... actually capable of being helpful now?
It's helping!
Silly, eh? Too over-the-top, too much association with Doom the game, or what? I was going for an "ominous death dealer" feel. The other two phase ships (both frigates) are named "Shade" and "Afflictor".It just seems kind of generic and cliche in my eyes. For the "ominous death dealer" feel you said you wanted, I think that the name "Damnation" would be an excellent substitution, and probably even gets that feeling across better. But it's your choice, I'm simply offering suggestions. As for the other two names, I'm fairly indifferent on the "Afflictor," but the "Shade" seems... kind of boring. Nothing really wrong with it, it just doesn't really stand out. I've always liked the name "Wraith", but maybe that's just me thinking back to the old Starcraft 1 days. Either way, names are names. As long as the ships are fun to use, I'll be happy :)
Interesting. I like the change to an alternate defense system.
Also, I would not like to see that Doom ship suddenly materializing next to me. That's a lot of shield- and armor-cracking burst firepower!
Invisible to people on the receiving end, I believe. It'd be a bit hard to navigate if it were invisible to you, no? ;D
Invisible to people on the receiving end, I believe. It'd be a bit hard to navigate if it were invisible to you, no? ;D
Full invisibility is the most disruptive aspect – managing the uncertainty of where a phase ship could be, and making guesses to counter it, is where most of the problems would come from – that has to go. So, conceptually, let’s say the ship is still in an alternate dimension, but it’s got energy anchors in this one, so it can be detected – call them “phase coils” to build on the art...
Silly, eh? Too over-the-top, too much association with Doom the game, or what? I was going for an "ominous death dealer" feel. The other two phase ships (both frigates) are named "Shade" and "Afflictor".It just seems kind of generic and cliche in my eyes. For the "ominous death dealer" feel you said you wanted, I think that the name "Damnation" would be an excellent substitution, and probably even gets that feeling across better. But it's your choice, I'm simply offering suggestions. As for the other two names, I'm fairly indifferent on the "Afflictor," but the "Shade" seems... kind of boring. Nothing really wrong with it, it just doesn't really stand out. I've always liked the name "Wraith", but maybe that's just me thinking back to the old Starcraft 1 days. Either way, names are names. As long as the ships are fun to use, I'll be happy :)
It seems that finding the correct time to vent flux in real space will be absolutely critical to their survival - will some of this new decision making also be improving normal ship's venting? You did mention that ships with low flux will vent if not threatened... :D
That thing is going to be a nightmare for the Dominator/Onslaught with their frontal 180 shields - it can just sail right through and pop them in the engines! This is going to be fun!
They are not invisible, just look at the blog screenshot :)
Full invisibility is the most disruptive aspect – managing the uncertainty of where a phase ship could be, and making guesses to counter it, is where most of the problems would come from – that has to go. So, conceptually, let’s say the ship is still in an alternate dimension, but it’s got energy anchors in this one, so it can be detected – call them “phase coils” to build on the art...
Will the AI be able to at least get a hint of where the phase ship is because of the afterglow from the Phase Coils?
Im so going to get the "Shade" as fast as possible! Awesome name! Alex, please add some new phase missions aswell? Or add them into the random mission rotation.
Also, is the price for the ships set? For in game then. Can you buy them, do you have to capture them? Answers please.
But how...what's the...bah, I'll find out when the patch comes. ;DWill the AI be able to at least get a hint of where the phase ship is because of the afterglow from the Phase Coils?
Alright, how can I make it more clear? :) They are perfectly visible to both sides.
So... what are approximate times for such frigate to spend in phase space? For how long can it become invulnerable?That thing is going to be a nightmare for the Dominator/Onslaught with their frontal 180 shields - it can just sail right through and pop them in the engines! This is going to be fun!
That's not going to be too easy to pull off, not without ending up at full flux by the time you're done :)
So... what are approximate times for such frigate to spend in phase space? For how long can it become invulnerable?
Always nice to see a blog post up when you check up on the game :)
I really like the way it sounds although I would like it if the phase ships were harder to detect, perhaps they should start off more or less invisible (or there actual size be hidden) and then become more visible as they stay phased or there phase-in/ phase-out could be adjusted.
Would having anti-phase weaponry that dephases a phased ship work (this could be just a weapon that acts as a sonar pulse that reveals all phased ships, could be put on a phased ship who has to decide to look for other and reveal my position or stay hidden)?
Would having different levels of phase each with its own advantages and disadvantages (e.g. fully-phased: invisible - but cannot see as far, goes slower or builds flux faster;)
If I remember my submarine history correctly I think Alex may have actually created what WWII subs were like, other than the being visible while submerged. The submarines of that period, at least to a certain degree, not truly at home under the water, moved faster on the surface, and had to surface relatively often when compared to modern subs (due to limited air replenishment, engine tech, and torp tech).
quick question what is seen by the opposing side, and the AI, of the phased ship? Just the "anchor", the entire ship, vague outline, weapons, orientation, etc ?
I'd actually say it does add enough to the game to warrant the needed complexity for gameplay purposes, just to have more immersive and interesting phase-gameplay. :D
Well, I'd actually like to see entirely phase out ships, because that's what my subconscious keeps telling me that they are and should be doing, but in the other hand, here's this feature which really doesn't give you as much of a cloak and only gives you the ability of not being hit. That's not really what I had in mind when I thought "phase ships"
Well, I'd actually like to see entirely phase out ships, because that's what my subconscious keeps telling me that they are and should be doing, but in the other hand, here's this feature which really doesn't give you as much of a cloak and only gives you the ability of not being hit. That's not really what I had in mind when I thought "phase ships"
quick question what is seen by the opposing side, and the AI, of the phased ship? Just the "anchor", the entire ship, vague outline, weapons, orientation, etc ?
Just the same as you see. EX: The pic in the blog post.
I don't really see how it benefits us at all. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) as a principle works pretty well in Starfarer. Let's hash the system out in its current form before adding needless complexity. I'm not even completely sure how what you're advocating would really help gameplay.
Alex, I've got a quick question: how does missile targeting interact with phase ships? More specifically, are missiles able to track a phased ship, or will their engines shut off when their target enters p-space? My question mostly relates to pilums, since most other missiles don't have enough range to loop around and make a second pass at their target if they miss the first time.they loop around and make a second pass
Alex, I've got a quick question: how does missile targeting interact with phase ships? More specifically, are missiles able to track a phased ship, or will their engines shut off when their target enters p-space? My question mostly relates to pilums, since most other missiles don't have enough range to loop around and make a second pass at their target if they miss the first time.they loop around and make a second pass
Well now that there is phasing I don't have to feel as bad about filling up a ship with tach-lances. I can always tell myself that I could besnuck-up onapproached-by by a ship with phasing.
interesting implementation. i saw as well that you stated that currently in the testing phase that all ships with phase can stay phased out for the same amount of time.. (without trying to sound too overbearing) i hope that does not stay like that. i would imagine just like shields, phase would have varying levels of effectiveness for uniqueness.
It's like you didn't read the blog post, or something ::)
Reasons - fine.
Why I wanted to see such a system as i saw in the concept art would be purely because that's exactly how I imagined phase ships to work in my mind once they where announced in-offically. I always thought of phase ships to be working and acting a lot like todays submarines, or even the old submarines. That they'd be semi-transparent for the friendly side, but be nearly invisible for the enemy, short of an alpha transparency of, say 10? Because old WWII submarines could either be detected by the use of sonar, or of they where close enough to the surface and you had some men with great eyes onboard, you could track them through the air bubbles the engines let out. In fact, this was the main way of tracking torpedoes once a submarine has launched them. But the main reasoning for this is that this system was what I purely had imagined when i heard the word "phase", logic being that they'd be so far onto the other dimension that they'd be nigh impossible to see, short of looking real good, and noticing any minor movement. The Ai would have to be dumbed down in this matter, to prevent it from detecting the phase ships. How this would be done I have no clue to, someone else can come up with it.
But the system you are going to put in place right now felt a little... Awkward and not exactly as i expected it, even though It's for balance.
TL;DR: gut reaction based on logical information on todays subs.
That does sound incredibly annoying. You could destroy cloaked ships in SPAZ with a little guess work and attention to detail, but it still wasn't much fun, nor was cloaking very useful in that game anyway.
Armada art picture? What does that mean?
Gameplay >>>>> Realism. Having to run from invisible, uncounterable ships because you didn't bring a Kryptonite Frigate that, if present, would make the phase ship completely worthless = bad gameplay.
Well, I've restrained myself for three weeks. Is there anything you can write about yet?There are other things in the works, but nothing I can talk about just yet.Well, in a few weeks I'll remind you that I'm entitled to a blog post. You HAVE to talk about something.
Just had a bit of a look through the old blog entries and found this one (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/05/10/assembling-the-fleet/#more-649) from way back. One of the concept pictures there has me rather curious whether or not it was an early draft of the Doom class, especially since I'd have to say I prefer the look of it to the current Doom. Though I do tend to prefer the more regular shapes for my starships. Image in question is in the spoiler below, first shipSpoiler(http://fractalsoftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ships1.jpg)[close]
I know, I know. I'm not talking about a new blog post here, but still, it's the best place to post it, and a new thread isn't really a good option for this
Any progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
50% happiness reached :PAny progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Any progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Pestering and posting have an inverse relationship...50% happiness reached :PAny progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Now, give us patch notes or a blog post, so we can praise them, sing to them, and discuss things before they are even released!
And we will be happy then.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Pestering and posting have an inverse relationship...50% happiness reached :PAny progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Now, give us patch notes or a blog post, so we can praise them, sing to them, and discuss things before they are even released!
And we will be happy then.
Ya i know ;) but some people are... :)Pestering and posting have an inverse relationship...50% happiness reached :PAny progress, even the little things, since the last release? I've been itching to know.
Lots. Happy now? :)
Now, give us patch notes or a blog post, so we can praise them, sing to them, and discuss things before they are even released!
And we will be happy then.
It's not like I was, you know, serious ;>
New blog post is up - Character Skills (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/09/08/character-design/).
How would this break combat exactly?
Hey Alex, do enemy admirals also have skills?
I hope that experience/equivalent isn't just gained from combat, that would reduce the range of viable playstyles quite a bit. Things like profitable trade runs providing some non-material goodies would be niceI agree. If I want to own a shipping company, I don't want to engage in battles so I can level up and stay alive, I want to trade and manage. Offering support for a wide variety of playstyles adds replayability. I've already created dozens of characters because I enjoy the early game and deciding what kind of fleet I want to have. Giving people more ways to achieve their objectives makes them want to start over again so that they can try something new.
I hope that experience/equivalent isn't just gained from combat, that would reduce the range of viable playstyles quite a bit. Things like profitable trade runs providing some non-material goodies would be niceI agree. If I want to own a shipping company, I don't want to engage in battles so I can level up and stay alive
Interesting stuff. Personally I'm hoping for a soft-cap. I don't like hard-caps.
Hey Alex, do enemy admirals also have skills?
One big thing that was left out (perhaps intentionally) was HOW one progresses. Do we gain experience along side our crew, or is there a special way to gain character experience. A mixture?
• Could a character without any points invested in anything be able to do everything (just less efficiently), or will skills and attributes unlock the ability to do certain things?
• How might officers affect things?
EDIT: Bonus questions-
• Will different npcs react differently based on where you allocate your attributes and skill points? (your reputation precedes you sorta thing)
• Will investment in attributes/skills provide some crossover effects in the other fields? (ie. combat skills providing an intimidation factor that improves your ability to sell or buy at a more favorable price)
Interesting stuff. Personally I'm hoping for a soft-cap. I don't like hard-caps.
I'm of the same opinion re: caps.
Also quite interested in the extent of how player-moddable the entire skills framework will be.
• Could a character without any points invested in anything be able to do everything (just less efficiently), or will skills and attributes unlock the ability to do certain things?
• How might officers affect things?
EDIT: Bonus questions-
• Will different npcs react differently based on where you allocate your attributes and skill points? (your reputation precedes you sorta thing)
• Will investment in attributes/skills provide some crossover effects in the other fields? (ie. combat skills providing an intimidation factor that improves your ability to sell or buy at a more favorable price)
1) Well, most of the hull mods will be unlocks. I'd say the player will be able to do most/all things at a base level, though.
2, 3, & 4) Too early to really dive into, though I have some more specific ideas for 2).
...
Interesting choice will the hull mods. Makes sense, but I'll have to see how that works out in practice. As long as I can get hardened shields, stabilized shields, integrated targeting unit, and resistant flux conduits (maybe expanded magazines, too) and still have points leftover for more fun things, I'll probably be happy. =)
That makes 3 of us :) Although, for me, "soft cap" just means "for all intents and purposes, a hard cap at +X levels" - where X isn't all that high.
dev version pls
Alex i think you should give us your dev version to test it for you. We would, thoroughly ::) Right guys/girls?
@Alex: Have you settled on whether hullmods will be one time unlocks or will improve with greater ranks?
im somewhat concerned that, in making 2 affinities and 10 skills the hard-soft cap you'll make whatever's just before that a little too hard to reach...
I'm hoping this has mod support tbh, it has the potential to just make everyone happy with whatever number you choose then.
How about a mixed cap? Major progression elements stop at level X (so the player can never max out every skill), but minor progression elements continue indefinitely, with diminishing returns, so that the player always feels like he/she is grower stronger even in a marathon of a game.
In an old turn-based RPG, that might mean getting no new skills or perks past, say, level 30, but still getting a little HP each level and perhaps the occasional extra action point. Not sure what the Starfarer equivalent would be!
Assuming the player can never get all the skills and aptitudes (which I, for one, am in favor of) will it be possible to re-spec them?
Assuming the player can never get all the skills and aptitudes (which I, for one, am in favor of) will it be possible to re-spec them?
This is a thorny question for me. I'm leaning towards "no, but yes if you edit the save file/turn on dev mode/use a cheat/some such". If you had a game with a fixed world (say, like Diablo, Torchlight, WoW, etc), then allowing respecs is a no-brainer. But if your character build is actually rooted in the game world - for example, say the number of outposts you can control is determined by a skill - then that's a problem.
Never mind that you could spec one way to do something you couldn't do with one build, then respec and do something else - what you've got then is a modified - and more awkward - version of "I've maxed out everything". Again, thorny, and works much better with a static world.
So long as you introduce some kind of penalty re-specs shouldn't be too game breaking. You could make the player start off again at level 1 (or some % of their original level) and then boost their growth rate until they hit their previous level again. Make the player work for it- if someone decides they actually wanted to focus on combat they should be able to start over again.
If someone already has assets governed by skills those assets are thusly rendered in-operational/must be discarded.
So long as you introduce some kind of penalty re-specs shouldn't be too game breaking. You could make the player start off again at level 1 (or some % of their original level) and then boost their growth rate until they hit their previous level again. Make the player work for it- if someone decides they actually wanted to focus on combat they should be able to start over again.
If someone already has assets governed by skills those assets are thusly rendered in-operational/must be discarded.
This all sounds suspiciously like starting a new game :) Not exactly, ofc, but very close to it. Given that the game world is (will be, really...) dynamic, I'd expect starting a new game to be a relatively frequent occurrence, anyway.
One more question from me- What sort of effects will the Technology attributes and skills have? The other ones I can sort of guess, but Technology is a bit of a mystery.
Is there just one type of EXP or do you only get industry EXP when building and only combat EXP when fighting?
Do you even get EXP for doing things other than combat?
Things brings up a slightly off topic question about the campaign: how many hours would you envision a game running (by which I mean the character progresses and the sector evolves to some sort of endish state)? I'm guessing that somewhere around 12-16 hours would be satisfying as a player: long enough to really get into it, but short enough that a whole bunch of playthroughs with different builds are possible.
I think the Aptitude/Skills division makes Starfarer remarkably well-suited for respeccing though. The main reason to allow respecs is to let players change decisions they made before they fully understood the mechanical implications of their choice, and one of the main reasons to disallow them is to prevent players from essentially being able to redefine their character on the fly. If you let people respec their skills for a (large or small) fee but kept their aptitudes static then people can't use respecs to fundamentally change who their character *is*, but they can change the mechanical specifics of how that's expressed.Assuming the player can never get all the skills and aptitudes (which I, for one, am in favor of) will it be possible to re-spec them?
This is a thorny question for me. I'm leaning towards "no, but yes if you edit the save file/turn on dev mode/use a cheat/some such". If you had a game with a fixed world (say, like Diablo, Torchlight, WoW, etc), then allowing respecs is a no-brainer. But if your character build is actually rooted in the game world - for example, say the number of outposts you can control is determined by a skill - then that's a problem.
Never mind that you could spec one way to do something you couldn't do with one build, then respec and do something else - what you've got then is a modified - and more awkward - version of "I've maxed out everything". Again, thorny, and works much better with a static world.
SpoilerI think the Aptitude/Skills division makes Starfarer remarkably well-suited for respeccing though. The main reason to allow respecs is to let players change decisions they made before they fully understood the mechanical implications of their choice, and one of the main reasons to disallow them is to prevent players from essentially being able to redefine their character on the fly. If you let people respec their skills for a (large or small) fee but kept their aptitudes static then people can't use respecs to fundamentally change who their character *is*, but they can change the mechanical specifics of how that's expressed.
Of course yeah, that runs into problems with things like the # of outposts. In the case of outposts and other capped things it might make more sense to adopt the soft-cap approach; if you have more than X outposts, their upkeep costs increase (or production costs increase dramatically, or what have you). So whilst you can respec out of being an trading outpost magnate or high-tech industrialist after building up a giant network of markets or a huge manufacturing base, the reward you're gaining from them dramatically decreases and they may even become a liability.
In the case of things like speccing to gain OP, or have crews vet faster or what have you as long as there's a cost to respec then it just becomes an alternative way of paying for higher vet crew, or getting efficient schematics.[close]
That makes a lot of sense. Whether the details work out is another question, but it seems promising. Aptitudes are broad strokes that even a new player is unlikely to get *that* wrong... Still... could be the kind of thing where if you allow it at all, it'd be weird/frustrating not to allow it all the way. Well, I'll definitely keep that in mind :)Thanks :). The selling point for Starfarer for me is how well-thought out and considered everything is, so I look forwards to seeing what your eventual solution to the quandry is. I know J.E. Sawyer from Obsidian had some interesting posts on the topic of respecs/mechanical transparency on his Formspring (http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer), but Formspring is a bugger to search through.
I vote no for respeccing. Having a person suddenly change? Dossnt really make any sense, and that people can change by paying? Makes no sense.It's a perfectly normal thing for people to shift their skillset over the course of their career and for their old skills to go rusty (for example front line to management, or switching research disciplines). In order to represent this you need some degree of abstraction; given IRL people don't distribute skill points at discrete points in their lives there's already a lot of abstraction in the system anyway, and since the whole point of respeccing is to allow you to avoid a permanent penalty to your character a non-permanent cost fits well (and money is the main replaceable resource in most games).
Things brings up a slightly off topic question about the campaign: how many hours would you envision a game running (by which I mean the character progresses and the sector evolves to some sort of endish state)? I'm guessing that somewhere around 12-16 hours would be satisfying as a player: long enough to really get into it, but short enough that a whole bunch of playthroughs with different builds are possible.
TBD, but I don't think it'll be a fixed number. I can see things spiraling out of control quickly in one playthrough, and a much more gradual decline in another - depending both on your actions, and on what happens in the sector. We'll see, though.
I think it is inevitable... barring a miraculous reactivation of the gate system (may or may not happen), the sector is basically screwed...
You could allow 'realistic' continual respeccing at a limited rate as you level, but it'd be awkward and also mean some of the finite amount of respec opportunities would be wasted by people who're still learning the system and don't yet realise they need to respec as their skill choices don't suit their playstyle or fit the character they're trying to RP; and after all, these are the main people who *need* to respec. I guess you could get around that *and* the instant respec cost issues by having players accrue a stock of 'respec points' as they level, but that means adding another resource to worry about that ideally shouldn't see any use.
For what it's worth, here's my two (or three) cents on respeccing.
(personal opinions only coming from my own view on how I like to play games, fully appreciate other people have differing opinions, feel free to discuss / shoot me down where necessary :))
In games like Diablo, I can see the benefit. The storyline is very linear (at least Diablo 2 was) and once you get through act 1, into act 2 and on to act 3, you might be at a point where you are thinking you should have taken an extra point in Orthodontics or whatever, instead of that neat-sounding Synesthesia skill.
Fighting those buffed pit fiends and tasting the colour of their skin every time they hit you is no longer a benefit (it was great in Act 1 at low level), and now you have finally reached Barney the Phase Dinosaur, you really need to be able to replace all those lost teeth in a hurry, rapidly and during combat.
It's also very much a game about making a lot of decisions to build a character through a lot of levels very quickly as you advance through stronger and stronger enemies - It's about progression. As the game gets progressively harder, marginal efficiencies in character builds become more and more important to maintain an effective, and fun, character.
This linearity and progression means that it isn't necessarily fun if you get to a brick wall where 1 skill pick is the difference between being able to advance and not.
I remember getting to Diablo on Diablo 2 and my necromancer could not defeat him with my army of skeletons. The difference was literally one skill pick in getting them SOME elemental resistance (confirmed by cheating!). It would have been a 6-hour grind or something, tracing back through boring levels I could easily conquer to achieve this (going up a level or finding a suitable enchanted head). Needless to say, I dropped the game and don't think I ever returned to it at this point. In this case respeccing would have solved this issue for me, and the lack of it was a problem.
In Starfarer, I don't envisage that this will be the way things pan out. After 6 cycles, in your first game, you might be only just coming to terms with how you are wanting to play the game, and your combat build is really hampering your wish to trade as efficiently as possible. But I don't think Starfarer is supposed to be about progression, so much as ... conflict? Change?
The question is, do you allow respeccing, or encourage the player to stick it out / start a new game?
What does the sector look like after 6 cycles? What benefit would there be in the player becoming the person 'they always wanted to be', in the sector at this point? What's wrong with being a grizzled, battle-seasoned commander running a few freighters from port to port - it's still a fun exercise, even if you aren't doing it AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE?
What about after 16 cycles when the Cult of Lud becoming a monstrous force in your main trade route, and you decide that there is more to be gained by being that legendary Commander from 12-13 cycles ago, maybe throwing your lot in with the Hegemony? Do you let people flip-flop between trades? How does this affect immersion?
I come from a background of enjoying hard and unforgiving games, like Nethack, Jagged Alliance 2, XCOM etc. and I thoroughly enjoy the aspect of 'losing' and coming at it afresh - and having to start a new game or just sitting by as the world crumbles around me (damn Ethereals). My first thought would be that respeccing is not for me.
I hope, if the world is living and breathing (even if those breaths are becoming less and less strong with each cycle) - then the majority of players will step away from thinking about DPS increases of 2%, and just playing things the way they want to play things and going along for the ride.
Having that push on players to stick with their decisions and ride them out to the end (even if that means their end) is (to me, at least) a positive one for the enjoyment of a game, and should form the basis of the 'vanilla balance' of the game.
I'm not against it if it turns out that it really does add to the game (and in truth, it probably will, as I can only imagine how difficult all the design issues will be to truly say that it won't) - but I wouldn't want it to be the default position for the grand-master-plan of how a typical game should play out.
He he ... oops, maybe that's four or five cents
Yes it is. And I agree with every bit of it.
You check out FTL at all?
One thing I might suggest: instead of aiming for "enough points to cap out two aptitudes", aim for that plus maybe three to four points - that way, if someone puts their first two points in combat aptitude and then changes their mind, they aren't locked out of the top level of whatever they do chose to pursue.
SpoilerMy 2 cents on repseccing:
Respeccing makes sense to me in the context of retraining: people can get better at some things while getting rusty at others. However: you can only retrain what a person knows, not who they are. From my perspective this means that aptitudes could not be retrained, but skills might be.
I would support having the option of using a respec point once per level (how much this would do is an open question), but they could not be banked. This represent how people can change in the moment, reacting to new scenarios. Can't bank change for a future date :P.
This would make sense in the context of a soft cap: the levels keep on coming, but after a short while all they let you do is gradually shift your character, rather than become a god.[close]
And believe it or not, this game is still in alpha state.
This brings up the question, "Is the game going into beta now?" I thought I remembered somewhere Alex saying all the combat stuff would be Alpha and the heavy campaign stuff would be beta.
Normally, for a game to go into beta it must be feature complete. The beta-phase is just bug fixing, balancing and polish. So we are still many releases away from that.
What's still to come before beta, from the old roadmap:
A full character creation system and skills (next release)
Officers & crew
Establishing outposts on planets
Blueprints and ship/weapon manufacture
Trade & exploration
Faction relations
Raiding core worlds and outposts
Construction Rig, Repair Drones – repair ships mid-battle and build temporary weapon platforms around captured objectives
Munitions Ships/Drones – rearm you ships mid-battle
Mines!
Construction Rig, Repair Drones – repair ships mid-battle and build temporary weapon platforms around captured objectives
Munitions Ships/Drones – rearm you ships mid-battle
Mines!
Construction Rig, Repair Drones – repair ships mid-battle and build temporary weapon platforms around captured objectives
Munitions Ships/Drones – rearm you ships mid-battle
Mines!
Erm... where'd you get these? None of those are anything I'd call "planned" - they range from "under consideration" to "not under consideration"...
Mixed in along the way will be various combat tweaks and improvements. Some of the larger items on the list now are:And they are in the list just under the points you already made true (phasing, ship-systems, the objective-oriented tactical commands).
...
Hey Alex, one of your Twitter messages said you're tossing synergies out the window. Could you go into a lil more detail on what thats about? O_o Or am I just totally confused?
So by out the window, would that mean synergies (or cross skill bonuses) won't bemoddablepossibly inserted via mods?
And syergies are being taken out? Well, that's sad. Guess we'll have to live without an epic Onslaught. ;D
Alex, will you publish patch notes or will you just surprise us this time?
Could we by any chance get ourselves a screenshot of the character screen? :)
Could we by any chance get ourselves a screenshot of the character screen? :)
It's functional, but not quite ready for that.
Is all the skill and stuff getting its own GUI? Will David make a bunch more of those lil' icons for each skill and all that jazz? Having it look slick and artsy is always a plus!
That's the plan.
how much progress have you guys made in the past month?
are you going to add more ships in the future?
and are there going to be more pictures for your character to look like?
Just one problem, do you get a command point back if you rescind the command during the command frequency? Hopefully you still lose that command point if you rescind it, because it might get abused (although a lengthy process).
Itl take a while to get used to
You gonna make a new combat tutorial while you are at it?
You gonna make a new combat tutorial while you are at it?
Probably not at this point, no. Maybe? I suppose it makes sense to do it soon, given that combat is pretty finished now.
... tutorials are the bane of all that is good.
... tutorials are the bane of all that is good.
I'm a little surprised to see that left-clicking on an empty space in the map still creates a way-point. I thought for sure you would adjust it so something like shift + left-click would be how you did it. I can already see myself accidentally creating more than a couple of way-points. I have a feeling I'm forgetting something that shift-clicking does in the map though...
Looks really good! I see that there is now a medium escort (replacing destroyer escort?). I really like the the direct orders will be free for a short time interval - it makes sense and also lets us get the details right.
What are those empty waypoints used for anyway?
I'm a little surprised to see that left-clicking on an empty space in the map still creates a way-point. I thought for sure you would adjust it so something like shift + left-click would be how you did it. I can already see myself accidentally creating more than a couple of way-points. I have a feeling I'm forgetting something that shift-clicking does in the map though...
I'm probably forgetting something, but would it not make sense to only create a empty waypoint with a right click (if nothing is selected)? Right clicking is for orders anyway.
For creating assignments. Say you want to rally a carrier somewhere that's not an objective - left click on empty space there, select "rally carrier".
Oh right. so you'd create some waypoints, then you could assign ships rts style w/o needing to konw the details of what the assignments are.
Yeah that makes sense. I was thinking there were still waypoints in the game with NO assignment. Which have never seemed to serve a purpose. Just named waypoints cluttering up the map.
Does that make sense? I know you can clear an assignment on them, then recreate it later, but other than that I see no purpose to the waypoint itself sticking around.
Hm. Re: Tutorials. I'd actually suggest giving us access to a bit more in the way of mission scripting tools instead.
If we could prevent the player from changing the outfitting of some or all of his ships, create text boxes and add or remove ships in reaction to in-game events (player dies, player reaches location / moves far enough away from location, enemy ship dies, time passes, etc.) - well. Not only could we make tutorials for you, but we could also do some really fun things - like making a twitch shooter mission with multiple waves of enemies, or multi-stage bossfights, or...
Don't know if that's more or less work than just making tutorials yourself, though.
The way I'm thinking about it, left-click is for selecting things, and that's what happens - a waypoint is created and selected.
Yeah that makes sense. I was thinking there were still waypoints in the game with NO assignment. Which have never seemed to serve a purpose. Just named waypoints cluttering up the map.
Does that make sense? I know you can clear an assignment on them, then recreate it later, but other than that I see no purpose to the waypoint itself sticking around.
Hmm - thanks for bringing it up, I'll give that some serious thought. Part of what's making tutorials such a royal pain to deal with is the hackiness of it all - doing them right would certainly be more satisfying. But perhaps too time-consuming (which is the part that needs more serious consideration).
Sometimes that blue text when colorblind support is activated is REALLY sore on my eyes. Just follow BF3's way of doing it, don't make text neon green or red, just a solid color all around.
Good for colorblind people (http://blogs.battlefield.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/3D-HUD-Colorblind-Console-2.jpg)
Bad for colorblind people (http://www.topshotta.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bf3-gameplay-pics.jpg)
New blog post, courtesy of David: Designing Faction Icons (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/11/17/designing-faction-icons/).
(Why orange? No one uses orange. Except the Dutch, I guess. Someone should use orange.)
New blog post is up: Painting the Hound and the Hangar (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/02/05/painting-the-hound-and-the-hangar/). It's by David, obviously :)I bet this forum can figure out what ship is wrecked in the last picture.
He put the turret on the wrong side ::)