Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Announcements => Topic started by: Alex on June 11, 2012, 06:59:54 PM

Title: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 11, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
This version is out - you can download it here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/08/02/starfarer-0-53a-release/).

Changes as of August 02, 2012

Ship AI:

Content:

Command UI:

Modding related:

Miscellaneous:

Bugfixing:


Changes as of July 24, 2012

Admiral AI:

Ship Systems:

Content:

Modding-related:

Miscellaneous:

Bugfixes:


Changes as of July 14, 2012

Ship AI:

Added Phase Cloaking:

Weapon/balance changes:

Ship Systems:

Miscellaneous:

Bugfixes:



Changes as of June 11, 2012

Ship Systems (along with tentative ship assignments):

Balance:

Ship AI:

Miscellaneous:

Controls:

Content:

Modding-related:

Bugfixes:
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: ciago92 on June 11, 2012, 07:05:37 PM

*snip*

  • Fortress Shield - drastically improves shield efficiency at the expense of a constant flux buildup and inability to fire weapons
    • Paragon

*snip*


I don't see the point of this. Unless the flux buildup is low, what is the difference between this and just keeping your shields up? (hint: answer is you can fire weapons regularly. and if the weapons are the issue press x to hold fire)

other than that, love it, looks like it will add a lot of interesting tactics to the game!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 11, 2012, 07:13:22 PM
It depends on how much incoming damage there is. The shields take 10x less damage, so if you're facing down an Onslaught (or two), they'll last much longer than otherwise. If you're facing a Hound, using these would be purely detrimental.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: cp252 on June 11, 2012, 07:17:06 PM
I've been waiting for the patch notes with anticipation usually reserved for the actual patch. YAAAY
Ahem: The fortress shield. What's the point exactly? If you're facing down a couple Onslaughts, won't raising shields and disabling weapons be useless unless you're in retreat? It pretty much just buys time...
It'd be useful on a carrier or something, say. Or a ship which has like bomb bays.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on June 11, 2012, 07:17:18 PM
Miscellaneous:

    Toned down ship explosion whiteout, fixed case where it would stay washed out for too long

YAY.. i remember posting a bug for this a while back. now i can say i contributed.. warranted or not LMAO.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FlashFrozen on June 11, 2012, 07:18:41 PM
infernium injector rename?  :D

But now I wonder how do we implement these in mods, (hopes for mod example 3 ) :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 11, 2012, 07:32:14 PM
Looks awesome. Bit sad no new campaign things are coming soon tho.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: LazyWizard on June 11, 2012, 07:35:01 PM
Ship AI:
  • Improved logic for deciding which side to turn towards enemy for broadsides

I have a question about this change. The Odyssey's large mounts are in a weird place arc-wise, as there's no overlap between left/right until a fair distance from the ship, but at Tachyon Lance distances, the overlap is wider than a capital ship - here's what I mean (http://i.imgur.com/qb8wo.png). Will my Fire Support Odyssey now try to hit with all three Lances, or will the AI just use the two on the left?

Edit: direct link to image.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 11, 2012, 08:04:22 PM
Ahem: The fortress shield. What's the point exactly? If you're facing down a couple Onslaughts, won't raising shields and disabling weapons be useless unless you're in retreat? It pretty much just buys time...

Buying time can be good if you've got other forces on the way. It's also likely they'll generate a good amount of flux trying to bring them down.

I'm not sure you want out of the system - it improves defense at the expense of offense, and that's pretty much all it does, with all the situational usefulness that entails :)

infernium injector rename?  :D

But now I wonder how do we implement these in mods, (hopes for mod example 3 ) :P

The infernium injector got cut - could never nail down what it was supposed to do, in a satisfying way (it was meant to be a high-tech movement enhancer, akin to Burn Drive, but different).

As far as mods, you won't be able to make brand new types of systems, but the existing systems have plenty of parameters that can be adjusted to create ones that play (and look) very different.

Looks awesome. Bit sad no new campaign things are coming soon tho.

Thanks! Yeah, I hear you - chomping at the bit to get started on campaign stuff, myself. But, ship systems were something that was planned from the very beginning - so in the long run, it's not a delay - and it made sense to do this now, to finish out what's probably the largest unimplemented combat feature. I'm very excited about finally getting these in the game.


I have a question about this change. The Odyssey's large mounts are in a weird place arc-wise, as there's no overlap between left/right until a fair distance from the ship, but at Tachyon Lance distances, the overlap is wider than a capital ship - here's what I mean (http://i.imgur.com/qb8wo.png). Will my Fire Support Odyssey now try to hit with all three Lances, or will the AI just use the two on the left?

It'll fire with all three, but only if it's a Fire Support assignment (there, it actually evaluates a wide range of possible facings for optimal firepower). In regular, close-in fighting (even when it might be able to sneak in a shot with all three), it'll pick the left side.

It should already be doing this in Fire Support mode, though - it's not a recent change.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MidnightSun on June 11, 2012, 08:05:25 PM
Looks great; I guessed on Twitter that the "lightning" was from the Omen! :p

How are the drones going to work? Are they essentially a fighter wing bound to the carrier (ie, destroyed drones replaced if the wing comes back)? Or is each one going to move separately from the others? Can the drones capture a beacon?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 11, 2012, 08:24:03 PM
Drones: you've got X amount that can be deployed at any one time, and a total number of drones the ship carries (replenished between battles). You press 'F' to deploy the drones in a pattern around the ship. 'F' again to let them roam on a longer leash. 'F' again to recall all drones - they land on the ship, and any damaged ones are repaired - though lost drones are gone for good. While drones are active (not "recalled"), it'll continue to deploy reserve drones to replace losses, until it's out of reserve drones.

Bah, I didn't do a good job of explaining.


Also: the pattern that the drones deploy in can be modded - in particular, you can have them deploy in a fixed position, or set up multiple orbits around the ship. I suspect that with a bit of creativity, the could be used to create hulls that transform into a somewhat different shape :) You can also make it alter ship stats in any way you want while drones are deployed (as the Apogee's Sensor Drones do).

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Lancefighter on June 11, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
can you put.. multiple subsystems on a ship? hmmm..

I guess not, given that you have a single hotkey for it.

the fortress shield looks interesting - Does it per chance instantly raise shields, or just make them 10x more resistant
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 11, 2012, 08:45:38 PM
Yay! This looks awesome. Can't wait. :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 11, 2012, 08:46:12 PM
Well I'm disappointed that the Odyssey only got a damage boost and not something as cool as a teleport, but it was kinda expected it wouldn't get that.

I am surprised we got two kinds of teleportation, which is very nice, very useful.

I'm very pleased with what the Apogee and the Omen will get, drones with EMP damage? Hell yes! And the Omen doing a 'field' of EMP damage that also damages ship systems? Awesome!! Exactly what I was hoping for.

The upcoming version sound very promising.

Hmm, come to think of it, a Plasma Cannon with a 50% damage boost would make it comparable to a rapid fire antimatter blaster... That's a scary though. Especially when you can fit two of 'em on a Odyssey. That's better then having 6 AM blasters firing simultaneously... Of course you can also outfit it with AM blasters. Oh wow. Oh my.

You know scratch that disappointment bit, the Odyssey has just become a nightmare to anything. I'm gonna see if I can insta-kill an Onslaught with it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on June 11, 2012, 09:51:58 PM
Question about a few of the systems, namely the High Energy Focus and Fortress Shield. You didn't mention that they were for a limited amount of time (like you did for Burn Drive for instance). Does that mean it's going to be something like a toggle ability? When you choose whether they are on or off constantly?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 11, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
The odyssey's ability seems like its going to limit it to tachyon lance use, sort of sad about that because i liked using it in close with autopulse lasers. Not using it's subsystem would feel like a waste, but no shields and 50% extra damage taken is just a death sentence for any high tech ship thats in anything but tachyon lance range. Not sure what i would have preferred tho.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MidnightSun on June 11, 2012, 10:34:11 PM
Thanks for the explanation on drones, Alex! That'll be fun to play with on the Astral.

The odyssey's ability seems like its going to limit it to tachyon lance use, sort of sad about that because i liked using it in close with autopulse lasers. Not using it's subsystem would feel like a waste, but no shields and 50% extra damage taken is just a death sentence for any high tech ship thats in anything but tachyon lance range. Not sure what i would have preferred tho.

You could still use it to deal out a ton of damage when the enemy ship is overloaded/just got hit with a bunch of EMP devices. That'd add more punch to energy weapons that'll bring them to HE levels versus armor.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 11, 2012, 10:46:04 PM
Holy crap! The thread is out? When will we see it in action, though? (And please, I don't take soonTM as an answer :))

Also, this is going to be awesome :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on June 11, 2012, 10:48:30 PM


The odyssey's ability seems like its going to limit it to tachyon lance use, sort of sad about that because i liked using it in close with autopulse lasers. Not using it's subsystem would feel like a waste, but no shields and 50% extra damage taken is just a death sentence for any high tech ship thats in anything but tachyon lance range. Not sure what i would have preferred tho.


Also it affects all energy energy weapons, not just the big guns. that increases the strength of pd lasers as well. So while you might not be able to use shields, you won't really need them against missiles. What I would do is to have your shields up and go into battle with some sort of heavy burst energy weapon. Either plasma blasters or autopulse (maybe a few AM blasters thrown in for fun). Then activate the High Energy ability and burst them down during a lull in their attacks. SO MUCH DAMAGE
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: LazyWizard on June 11, 2012, 11:03:51 PM
I have a question about this change. The Odyssey's large mounts are in a weird place arc-wise, as there's no overlap between left/right until a fair distance from the ship, but at Tachyon Lance distances, the overlap is wider than a capital ship - here's what I mean (http://i.imgur.com/qb8wo.png). Will my Fire Support Odyssey now try to hit with all three Lances, or will the AI just use the two on the left?

It'll fire with all three, but only if it's a Fire Support assignment (there, it actually evaluates a wide range of possible facings for optimal firepower). In regular, close-in fighting (even when it might be able to sneak in a shot with all three), it'll pick the left side.

It should already be doing this in Fire Support mode, though - it's not a recent change.

I just ran a few battles and hung back with my Odysseys, and yeah, they work perfectly. Sorry about that, I based my question on when I used to use one as a flagship and would go into autopilot for the ultra-long-range shots (but no Rally Fire Support active, I guess), combined with the more recent times when I was in the thick of things and saw only one or two beams go by, which isn't a very accurate metric either. ;)

For the Phase Skimmer, will there be a UI element to show what your current vector is? And if so, can it be made universal? It would really help with lining up those pesky Reaper shots. :D

The odyssey's ability seems like its going to limit it to tachyon lance use, sort of sad about that because i liked using it in close with autopulse lasers. Not using it's subsystem would feel like a waste, but no shields and 50% extra damage taken is just a death sentence for any high tech ship thats in anything but tachyon lance range. Not sure what i would have preferred tho.

I agree. It's not that there's no benefit to using it with a close-range build. The problem is that a Tachyon build will never see any of those drawbacks unless they were already screwed. Remember, three lances with a 50% damage bonus means that every six-and-a-half seconds, a Tachyon build can do 6,750 damage from across the map with no meaningful downsides (and don't forget 3,375 EMP damage on top of that, or "only" 2,250 if EMP isn't boosted).

Maybe just greatly increased weapon flux generation would work? With, say, +200% flux gen, it's more of an "I want you dead right now" thing, useful when your opponent has a weapon with a massive cooldown and you want them taken out before they can fire again. It also penalizes all builds equally.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 11, 2012, 11:31:22 PM
I just want to take a second to point out that I was completely right on the teleportation thing in that medusa screenie Alex posted.  ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 11, 2012, 11:32:29 PM
I just want to take a second to point out that I was completely right on the teleportation thing in that medusa screenie Alex posted.  ;)

I suppose you'll get that cookie then :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on June 11, 2012, 11:35:23 PM
I just want to take a second to point out that I was completely right on the teleportation thing in that medusa screenie Alex posted.  ;)

I suppose you'll get that cookie then :)

Here is cookie
(>^.^)>#
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Movementcat on June 11, 2012, 11:41:00 PM
Nice one Nice one, now i need some Grindy thing like XP Farming 2 keep me on the track :-)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 11, 2012, 11:45:19 PM
The odyssey's ability seems like its going to limit it to tachyon lance use, sort of sad about that because i liked using it in close with autopulse lasers. Not using it's subsystem would feel like a waste, but no shields and 50% extra damage taken is just a death sentence for any high tech ship thats in anything but tachyon lance range. Not sure what i would have preferred tho.



Are you kidding me?

How about waiting to use it until a ship is about to overload or already overloading? Not like its going to put up a fight then is it? While you pore on an extra 50% damage on top of the up-to 50% high flux boost and you've got yourself some nasty damage right there. Combine it with either Autopulse Laser or the Plasma Cannon, the opponent is in for one hell of a surprise, armor means nothing at that point. Even a Tactical laser can do 125 damage at that point, thats half a High Intensity Laser mind you.

Here's a though, this extra damage doesn't seem to come at a cost in flux, so that's nice and efficient right there.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on June 12, 2012, 12:06:08 AM
Super cool!

Loving the thought of the Venture / Vigilance becoming awesome Pilum platforms with the fast missile reload, and the drones are a very pleasant surprise!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on June 12, 2012, 12:22:25 AM
how is telefragging handled in the game?

(teleporting right into another object)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 12, 2012, 12:41:27 AM
Can't wait to see this stuff in game :O
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Okim on June 12, 2012, 01:05:02 AM
Nice new features we have here. I already drawing some new scetches for ISA and Aliens :)

Some questions i`d like to ask:

1. drones. Can a ship have drones and hangars for standard fighters? Are drones shown on the ship (attached) like turrets or do they just launch from bays? Is there a new hardpoint type for drone hangars?

2. ship systems. How do we put those on a ship? Via variants or through other ways? I ask because i`d like to know if those are hull-specified or variant-specified. If it is a variant-specified than all drones/flares etc. probably launch from the ships center...

3. teleportation. What happens if we intentionally teleport on any other ship? What happens if we do it unintentionally (skimmer type teleport)? I assume that there is some safe-guard code that prevents such collisions?

4. missile flares. Once again - are there any hardpoints for those? Or do they launch from the center of a ship? How much flares are launched?

Lastly - nice MOO2-ish names! I love how those classic things end up in this game with almost the same features.

And - congrats on finishing a really interesting combat element ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Ishikawa on June 12, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
  • Fortress Shield - drastically improves shield efficiency at the expense of a constant flux buildup and inability to fire weapons
    • Paragon
Hmm can't see much use for this but then i'm tactically challenged sometimes.

  • High Energy Focus - boosts energy weapon damage by 50%, increases damage taken by 50%, can't use shields
    • Sunder, Aurora, Odyssey
I like this one, interesting tactics are already in my mind now.

  • Phase Skimmer - teleports a fixed, short distance along the ship's current velocity vector
    • Wolf, Medusa
Okay my favorite ship (Medusa) just got more awesome...

"Full frontal shields, we have to get closer to the Onslaught! Set ramming course!"
"Sir? Are you..."
"Set the course Ensign!"
"Yes Sir!"
Seconds tick by
"Kill the engines, turn her around but keep shield alignment!"
"Yes Sir!"
"Wait for it..."
"Sir?"
"Wait..."
...
"Activate Phase Skimmer!"
*teleports behind the onslaught*
"Fire EVERYTHING!"

XD
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on June 12, 2012, 02:24:23 AM
I suspect that with a bit of creativity, the could be used to create hulls that transform into a somewhat different shape :) You can also make it alter ship stats in any way you want while drones are deployed (as the Apogee's Sensor Drones do).

Siege Mode = ACTIVATED

Overall, the changes looks great. Now every ship has something unique to them, which is problably going to make those lesser ships being used more, especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hopelessnoob on June 12, 2012, 02:31:05 AM
ohhh even more things to make combat even more fun and exciting...just need a character to progress and i'll never turn the game off....
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 12, 2012, 02:38:03 AM
Wow this all sounds awesome! Im hoping the midline drones are not OP, can they target shields? Or just missiles?

Example:

1: Run Gemini into another ship with shields up.
2: Activate mg drones.
3: Enemy shields get instantly overloaded.
4: ???
5: Profit!

EDIT: Single mgs not dual.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 12, 2012, 02:48:30 AM
If the enemy ship is already overloading in front of 1.5 odyssey broadsides (funny angles on its turrets eh) he is doomed whether or not i get a 50% damage bonus. To top it off, its rare your only fighting one ship at a time in the campaign, and even then i wouldnt want to make myself vulnerable by both taking down by primary means of defense and getting a 50% incoming damage penalty to my soft armor as its all too often stray pilums or a frigate can zoom in and ruin your day.

Maybe if that bonus instead did something like make you extra vulnerable to an overload that would last far longer than normal or something and instead of increasing damage reduced flux output, but on a high tech ship you might as well press the self destruct button in a battlefield scenerio otherwise.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 12, 2012, 03:01:49 AM
Any estimated release date yet? Except the commonly known one?

Spoiler
Soontm
[close]
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 03:07:22 AM
Quote
Burn Drive - temporarily engages the drive used for system travel. Massive speed boost for a fixed time, can't turn or use shields (but can fire), risk of full engine flameout on significant collision...

...Tarsus, Enforcer, Dominator, Onslaught...
Hmm, isn't this ability is a little useless in a way? Sure, you can get to battle faster, but there's still the major disadvantage to the Dominator and Onslaught of not being able to turn very good and having fixed shields, so getting into battle faster may not actually be a good thing since you have less flank support. And using it in battle would only make it easier for your enemies to flank you because you just zoom past them.

Please enlighten me on what advantage this gives. Does it allow them to ram their enemy or something? Run away faster?

Quote
Maneuvering Jets - activates extra thrusters to greatly improve ship maneuverability...
...Falcon, Eagle...
Huh, personally I thought their maneuverability was already top of the line for cruisers and didn't need to be any higher.

Quote
Phase Teleporter - teleports anywhere (to cursor location) within a significant range (~1500 pixels)...
...Hyperion...
Oh dear god. That is scary. What is the cooldown? Because it sounds like it could make the Hyperion ridiculously dangerous since it's a great strike ship. Potentially too dangerous.

Quote
Accelerated Ammo Feeder - doubles ballistic weapon rate of fire for a fixed duration
...Hammerhead...
Oh god, the mental image of two Heavy Maulers running with the firepower of 4. Beautiful. :)

Quote
Increased Pilum missile hitpoints
By how much?

Quote
Improved Buffalo Mk.2 speed and maneuverability significantly
Hey, now it's no longer an easy target that thinks it's better than a frigate but is actually horrifically worse!

How fast does it go and turn now?

Quote
Toned down ship explosion whiteout, fixed case where it would stay washed out for too long
Aww, the effect of a battleship completely whiting out the screen was vaguely hilarious when it wasn't happening to you. :P

Quote
Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose
Aww, that was a slightly useful ability in very rare cases, to raise flux and thus damage without firing at nothing. Oh well, it wasn't that important.

Is the function still in, though? Can I still bind it to a key if I really want it for some strange reason?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on June 12, 2012, 03:17:53 AM
Quote
Burn Drive - temporarily engages the drive used for system travel. Massive speed boost for a fixed time, can't turn or use shields (but can fire), risk of full engine flameout on significant collision...

...Tarsus, Enforcer, Dominator, Onslaught...
Hmm, isn't this ability is a little useless in a way? Sure, you can get to battle faster, but there's still the major disadvantage to the Dominator and Onslaught of not being able to turn very good and having fixed shields, so getting into battle faster may not actually be a good thing since you have less flank support. And using it in battle would only make it easier for your enemies to flank you because you just zoom past them.

Please enlighten me on what advantage this gives. Does it allow them to ram their enemy or something? Run away faster?
I suppose the main advantages are either defensively getting out of the way of big ships that have taken your rear by surprise, or probably more usefully allowing your slow ships to be deployed in the second and subsequent waves of reinforcements, and getting to the front line that much quicker.

Tarsus is presumably simply a case of getting as fast as possible to the other side of the map to escape. Will make 'The Wolf Pack' mission very interesting indeed ...

Also I'm sure there will be further, more tactically subtle uses of this, but those immediately spring to mind.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 03:28:30 AM
I suppose the main advantages are either defensively getting out of the way of big ships that have taken your rear by surprise,
But... shouldn't you be keeping yourself aimed at the big ships at all times with those last two ships? I mean, to me that seems like the logical thing to with ships that turn slowly which also have fixed weapon slots and fixed shields.

Quote
or probably more usefully allowing your slow ships to be deployed in the second and subsequent waves of reinforcements, and getting to the front line that much quicker.
Yes, that is an advantage, but the advantage is only in getting places. Once battle starts, I personally see myself only rarely using it if at all, which is what I'm uncertain about, because it seems like the only Ship System in the game that I wouldn't use in battle itself out of all the other Ship Systems, for ships that seem to get less use out of it than they could get with, say, Maneuvering Jets.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 12, 2012, 03:45:10 AM
I suppose the main advantages are either defensively getting out of the way of big ships that have taken your rear by surprise,
But... shouldn't you be keeping yourself aimed at the big ships at all times with those last two ships? I mean, to me that seems like the logical thing to with ships that turn slowly which also have fixed weapon slots and fixed shields.

Quote
or probably more usefully allowing your slow ships to be deployed in the second and subsequent waves of reinforcements, and getting to the front line that much quicker.
Yes, that is an advantage, but the advantage is only in getting places. Once battle starts, I personally see myself only rarely using it if at all, which is what I'm uncertain about, because it seems like the only Ship System in the game that I wouldn't use in battle itself out of all the other Ship Systems, for ships that seem to get less use out of it than they could get with, say, Maneuvering Jets.

Honestly, the worst part about piloting an Onslaught or Dominator is the long time it takes to get the damn things to battle, as well as enabling pursuit of faster ships or cutting off of retreat routes. I'd get a lot of use out of the subsystem... and it makes the Enforcer crazy good at getting to that all-important central capture point quickly and warding Hounds and other cappers away from it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 04:02:48 AM
Yes, the speed is nice to getting into battle. But as I mentioned, it seems like the only thing I wouldn't use in battle. Which is important, because while every other ship is getting serious buffs to their fighting ability, those four ships are only getting bonuses to getting to or getting away from the fight. Thus, to me it appears that those ships are getting left behind compared to the others in plain combat ability.

And viewing it again, it also gives nasty debuffs like preventing usage of your shields and turning, so any half decent ship can just turn to the side or get out of the ark of your fixed guns, and also fire back without any objection from your shield, which makes the advantage of pursuit less appealing than you may think, especially when the ship has HE torpedoes or missiles and you are flying right at them...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 12, 2012, 04:05:22 AM
In my experience, getting fast into the battle at the beginning of it, is crucial to win it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on June 12, 2012, 04:10:24 AM
I suppose the main advantages are either defensively getting out of the way of big ships that have taken your rear by surprise,
But... shouldn't you be keeping yourself aimed at the big ships at all times with those last two ships? I mean, to me that seems like the logical thing to with ships that turn slowly which also have fixed weapon slots and fixed shields.
Yeah, of course you should. But then you wouldn't have been taken by surprise ...  :P

And conversely, I think it could prove to be a big deal in deciding the effectiveness of e.g. an Onslaught as part of a larger fleet.

This frees up a whole bunch of FPs to structure a strong and quick advance force, knowing that you have the latitude to e.g. reliably capture and hold a comm relay, and get your hulking Onslaught in to the battle as part of the second wave very quickly.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 04:41:11 AM
In my experience, getting fast into the battle at the beginning of it, is crucial to win it.
So that's why we have frigates and fighters and deploy them first.

The Dominators and Onslaughts do not fit with a faster speed. Sure, they can provide support to the smaller ships quicker, but they're quite bad at doing so and the moment the enemy's bigger ships come, they're going to find that the enemy has a much more useful ability.

And conversely, I think it could prove to be a big deal in deciding the effectiveness of e.g. an Onslaught as part of a larger fleet.

This frees up a whole bunch of FPs to structure a strong and quick advance force, knowing that you have the latitude to e.g. reliably capture and hold a comm relay, and get your hulking Onslaught in to the battle as part of the second wave very quickly.
Good point, actually. But the enemy could also send out a strong and quick advance force, and just skirmish with your Onslaught and Dominators--which are horrible at doing so with smaller ships--until your own big ships arrive, which have better systems.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nooblies on June 12, 2012, 04:44:57 AM
Burn drive sounds like one of the most useful abilities being added, especially on the slower early epoch ships. Not only will they be able to get into the thick of it much more quickly and easily and remain there (so preventing high tech ships from safely backing off and remaining at range or venting), it also allows them to move from battle to battle much more quickly and so have a larger effect on the larger battles, where they currently often get stuck between fights due to their low speeds. For example, you are trying to capture a defended command point while also attacking their carriers. An Onslaught or Dominator will be able to rush up to the carrier group and wipe the floor with it, vent flux while orientating itself to the battle around the command point and then "jump" into the battle, possibly even flanking the enemy and trapping them between your forces.

As for having enemy ships move around the sides during a battle and flanking, it also provides an easy escape mechanism. It lets you get out of weapons range, vent flux and re-orientate yourself with the enemy ship, so will add more survivability to the lower tech ships and make them less vulnerable to getting stuck with enemy ships behind them, where their shields and guns are relatively useless.

Personally I can't wait to charge into a group of Tri-tachyon frigates and destroyers with a machine-gun-slaught and watch them all melt under a hail of bullets. Bwahahahaha!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hopelessnoob on June 12, 2012, 04:50:20 AM
I don't know about you guys but i can't wait to ram a ship to death with my onslaught going at full speed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 12, 2012, 04:51:39 AM
Personally I can't wait to charge into a group of Tri-tachyon frigates and destroyers with a machine-gun-slaught and watch them all melt under a hail of bullets. Bwahahahaha!

I don't want to smash your dreams here but I doubt it will be effective for charging frigates, those things will probably be too fast.

I don't know about you guys but i can't wait to ram a ship to death with my onslaught going at full speed.

That's probably just gonna make you lose your engine. Could still be fun.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Daveydude on June 12, 2012, 05:10:59 AM
I don't know about you guys but i can't wait to ram a ship to death with my onslaught going at full speed.

That's probably just gonna make you lose your engine. Could still be fun.
I believe that it may be more effective than that. A few bumps with a smaller ship normally puts their flux up 50%. To ram them at that speed, they will overload straight away. Who cares if you lose your engines.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 12, 2012, 05:59:37 AM
What happens if you teleport into another ship/asteroid?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Starlight on June 12, 2012, 06:15:44 AM
Looks like a lot of new fun. z; )

The new modding stuff looks fun.  I may have to play with custom engines.  I have a few ideas for custom ship systems.  Can't wait to see what we get a look at those. 

Happy about the control changes.  Don't always want to be fiddling for the shift or ctrl keys.  Q and E strafing is good news.  The AI stuff looks nice as well. 

Wondering how much if any of this will break mods.  Haven't tried updating one yet, I'd suppose it may be unfun. z: )
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on June 12, 2012, 09:15:54 AM
The infernium injector got cut - could never nail down what it was supposed to do, in a satisfying way (it was meant to be a high-tech movement enhancer, akin to Burn Drive, but different).

Well, you've got something that fits that bill quite nicely: the phase skimmer.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 12, 2012, 09:36:17 AM
HELL YEA!  Finally. ;D
Heyyy, automatic drones!  Are they repaired in battle when they return to the mothership?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KDR_11k on June 12, 2012, 09:45:49 AM
What happens if you teleport into another ship/asteroid?

Asteroids just bounce around in your hitbox until they break which takes only a few moments. That's what happens when you spawn inside one, anyway. I'd guess the phase things would just prevent you from materializing fully before you have left all ship boundaries.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 12, 2012, 10:21:52 AM
HELL YEA!  Finally. ;D
Heyyy, automatic drones!  Are they repaired in battle when they return to the mothership?

See:

Drones: you've got X amount that can be deployed at any one time, and a total number of drones the ship carries (replenished between battles). You press 'F' to deploy the drones in a pattern around the ship. 'F' again to let them roam on a longer leash. 'F' again to recall all drones - they land on the ship, and any damaged ones are repaired - though lost drones are gone for good. While drones are active (not "recalled"), it'll continue to deploy reserve drones to replace losses, until it's out of reserve drones.

Bah, I didn't do a good job of explaining.


Also: the pattern that the drones deploy in can be modded - in particular, you can have them deploy in a fixed position, or set up multiple orbits around the ship. I suspect that with a bit of creativity, the could be used to create hulls that transform into a somewhat different shape :) You can also make it alter ship stats in any way you want while drones are deployed (as the Apogee's Sensor Drones do).


Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 12, 2012, 10:24:57 AM
Quote
High Energy Focus - boosts energy weapon damage by 50%, increases damage taken by 50%, can't use shields

    Sunder, Aurora, Odyssey

I'll have to wait to play this and see how it goes. In my mind either 50% extra damage or no shields would be appropriate. Of course I'll probably eat those words the instant I switch this on and gore an overloading enemy to death. My main concern, like a lot of other people, is how this will affect the Tachyon lance. Because of the range tachyon Odyssey's will have no downsides to this ability...

Alex, how do you feel about the Tachyon lance?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 12, 2012, 10:25:43 AM
DRONES! HELL TO THE F*CKING YEAH!
TIME FOR PROTOSS-STYLE BEEHIVES INSTEAD OF JUST PASSIVE FIGHTER SUPPORT!



Not to mention all the incredible modding features that they seem to bring to the table (making them mobile ship parts, modifying ship stats)



how is telefragging handled in the game?

(teleporting right into another object)


Probably just like spawning something inside of your ship during simulation mode is handled:
The two ships push each other around until they're not inside each other anymore, all with normal collision damage.

So if you teleport into a large ship with your small ship you are toast.
If you teleport your large ship on top of a small ship you will crush it.
(In before Phase Teleport on the Omega)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kommodore Krieg on June 12, 2012, 10:43:26 AM
These look great, and fortress shield sounds amazing honestly. With a 10x modifier you can soak up the fire from several onslaughts while they max their flux from firing all out.  When their flux is maxxed turn it off, and they are at your mercy.  It's like a "shield wall" skill, and I'm pretty sure most people understand how useful that skill was, in the right situations. 
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 11:47:12 AM
I don't know about you guys but i can't wait to ram a ship to death with my onslaught going at full speed.

That's probably just gonna make you lose your engine. Could still be fun.
I believe that it may be more effective than that. A few bumps with a smaller ship normally puts their flux up 50%. To ram them at that speed, they will overload straight away. Who cares if you lose your engines.
Ha ha, you're honestly saying that about a ship that has fixed shields and mostly frontal weapons?

Lose your engines in a ship like that, and you've pretty much given every enemy on the battle the ability to calmly approach your rear and fire torpedoes up it. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on June 12, 2012, 11:47:32 AM
I like the ship systems that are being implemented, but there are a few systems that I'd be interested in seeing that aren't there:

  •A system that increases ballistic/energy/beam weapons' range and velocity by, say, 25-100% while active (perhaps with increased flux cost or something, to offset it). Range is one of the most powerful stats, though.
  •A system that just deals damage. I like the idea of a ship built around a weapon, like a weapon so large for its ship class that the only way to feasibly accomodate it is to build it right into the frame. Also, think 'Death Star'.

Anywho, keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 12, 2012, 12:34:49 PM
Question about a few of the systems, namely the High Energy Focus and Fortress Shield. You didn't mention that they were for a limited amount of time (like you did for Burn Drive for instance). Does that mean it's going to be something like a toggle ability? When you choose whether they are on or off constantly?

Yeah, they're toggleable, but with a small cooldown (5s on Fortress Shield, at the moment).


how is telefragging handled in the game?
What happens if you teleport into another ship/asteroid?
3. teleportation. What happens if we intentionally teleport on any other ship? What happens if we do it unintentionally (skimmer type teleport)? I assume that there is some safe-guard code that prevents such collisions?

It'll pick a nearby location such that the ship doesn't materialize on top of something else.


1. drones. Can a ship have drones and hangars for standard fighters? Are drones shown on the ship (attached) like turrets or do they just launch from bays? Is there a new hardpoint type for drone hangars?

Yes, it can have both. No, drones are not shown - they launch from/land at a defined location, which is generally a single new "SYSTEM" type "weapon slot". If that's not defined, it'll use the center of the ship.

2. ship systems. How do we put those on a ship? Via variants or through other ways? I ask because i`d like to know if those are hull-specified or variant-specified. If it is a variant-specified than all drones/flares etc. probably launch from the ships center...

A new column in ship_data.csv, so it's per-hull. Think of the balancing nightmare it'd be otherwise :)


4. missile flares. Once again - are there any hardpoints for those? Or do they launch from the center of a ship? How much flares are launched?

These have fake weapons defined in weapon_data.csv, along with some fake "weapon slots" defined on each ship.  The flare system just puts a launcher into each defined slot - so, different ships with the same "Flare Launcher" system could launch a different number of flares, depending on how many slots are configured on the hull. Right now, each individual slot is set to launch 10 flares (configurable in weapon_data.csv).


Lastly - nice MOO2-ish names! I love how those classic things end up in this game with almost the same features.

Hahah, thanks :) Yeah, it was fun to include those.

And - congrats on finishing a really interesting combat element ;)

Might be a little early for "finishing" - still lots of playtesting and usability stuff left - but it's definitely a good ways along.


... especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?

The top speed is 80 now - not great, but no longer horrible. It's still not a good ship, and really isn't supposed to be one.


Wow this all sounds awesome! Im hoping the midline drones are not OP, can they target shields? Or just missiles?

They can target ships, though they prefer missiles and fighters first. As to it being OP, well, it's the Gemini - not exactly a scary front-line combatant. And the drones are very fragile.


Good point, actually. But the enemy could also send out a strong and quick advance force, and just skirmish with your Onslaught and Dominators--which are horrible at doing so with smaller ships--until your own big ships arrive, which have better systems.

Ah, but with Burn Drive, these ships become quite good at bullying smaller ships. It's a bit of a bull vs matador thing, but the matador doesn't always win. If a frigate gets behind it, the ship can get away. If a frigate is in front of it, it can close the gap with frightening speed. It's an awesome system, with tons of combat utility, especially vs smaller ships - and, lets face it, the main problem for these ships was mobility, not firepower or armor. Burn Drive is a tool to overcome that limitation. It's got some downsides (no turning, no shields) but without those it would be incredibly OP.


I don't know about you guys but i can't wait to ram a ship to death with my onslaught going at full speed.

That's probably just gonna make you lose your engine. Could still be fun.

The flameout chance only comes into play when you hit something as big as your ship or larger.


The infernium injector got cut - could never nail down what it was supposed to do, in a satisfying way (it was meant to be a high-tech movement enhancer, akin to Burn Drive, but different).

Well, you've got something that fits that bill quite nicely: the phase skimmer.

Yeah, good call - the skimmer is indeed the "spiritual successor" to the injector - it's on the same two ships the injector was supposed to go on.


Quote
High Energy Focus - boosts energy weapon damage by 50%, increases damage taken by 50%, can't use shields

    Sunder, Aurora, Odyssey

I'll have to wait to play this and see how it goes. In my mind either 50% extra damage or no shields would be appropriate. Of course I'll probably eat those words the instant I switch this on and gore an overloading enemy to death. My main concern, like a lot of other people, is how this will affect the Tachyon lance. Because of the range tachyon Odyssey's will have no downsides to this ability...

Alex, how do you feel about the Tachyon lance?

We'll see - there hasn't been an awful lot of playtesting, beyond just making sure the systems "feel" good. I have to admit, I hadn't considered the "Odyssey with Tachyon Lances and always-on HEF" angle - but was already thinking of reducing Tachyon Lance range to around 3000 (from 5000). Definitely something to keep an eye out for, though.

I like the ship systems that are being implemented, but there are a few systems that I'd be interested in seeing that aren't there:

  •A system that increases ballistic/energy/beam weapons' range and velocity by, say, 25-100% while active (perhaps with increased flux cost or something, to offset it). Range is one of the most powerful stats, though.
  •A system that just deals damage. I like the idea of a ship built around a weapon, like a weapon so large for its ship class that the only way to feasibly accomodate it is to build it right into the frame. Also, think 'Death Star'.

Well, there are lots of cool ideas, and only so many ships and so much time :) As for a "ship around a weapon", I've been thinking about that a bit - came up early on during this dev cycle. *IF* that happens, it probably won't be handled through ship systems. You actually could do this with a mod - easy enough to strap any kind of weapon onto a hull using the same functionality that, say, the flare launcher uses - but the problem would be in making the AI use it. Needs a bit more thought on my end.


Wow, that was a lot of questions! Hope that means you guys are as excited about ship systems as I am :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 12, 2012, 12:43:00 PM
Alex, I think you missed one of my questions:

Quote
Quote
Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose
Aww, that was a slightly useful ability in very rare cases, to raise flux and thus damage without firing at nothing. Oh well, it wasn't that important.

Is the function still in, though? Can I still bind it to a key if I really want it for some strange reason?



Ah, but with Burn Drive, these ships become quite good at bullying smaller ships. It's a bit of a bull vs matador thing, but the matador doesn't always win. If a frigate gets behind it, the ship can get away. If a frigate is in front of it, it can close the gap with frightening speed. It's an awesome system, with tons of combat utility, especially vs smaller ships - and, lets face it, the main problem for these ships was mobility, not firepower or armor. Burn Drive is a tool to overcome that limitation. It's got some downsides (no turning, no shields) but without those it would be incredibly OP.
Hmm. How much speed does it add, anyway? How long does it last? Can you cancel it?

The flameout chance only comes into play when you hit something as big as your ship or larger.
Is that defined by the class, the mass, or the size in pixels?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 12, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Alex, I think you missed one of my questions:

Quote
Quote
Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose
Aww, that was a slightly useful ability in very rare cases, to raise flux and thus damage without firing at nothing. Oh well, it wasn't that important.

Is the function still in, though? Can I still bind it to a key if I really want it for some strange reason?

Ah, I did indeed. No, you can't bind it anymore - it's gone.


Ah, but with Burn Drive, these ships become quite good at bullying smaller ships. It's a bit of a bull vs matador thing, but the matador doesn't always win. If a frigate gets behind it, the ship can get away. If a frigate is in front of it, it can close the gap with frightening speed. It's an awesome system, with tons of combat utility, especially vs smaller ships - and, lets face it, the main problem for these ships was mobility, not firepower or armor. Burn Drive is a tool to overcome that limitation. It's got some downsides (no turning, no shields) but without those it would be incredibly OP.
Hmm. How much speed does it add, anyway? How long does it last? Can you cancel it?

The flameout chance only comes into play when you hit something as big as your ship or larger.
Is that defined by the class, the mass, or the size in pixels?

Right now, it adds 200 speed, and lots of acceleration. 1 second ramp-up, 4 second duration, can not be cancelled.

Flameout possibility is determined by size class, and by mass in the case of asteroids (only an issue when they hit frigates, but no frigates have Burn Drive, so that actually doesn't come into play at all).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on June 12, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
The infernium injector got cut - could never nail down what it was supposed to do, in a satisfying way (it was meant to be a high-tech movement enhancer, akin to Burn Drive, but different).

Well, you've got something that fits that bill quite nicely: the phase skimmer.

Yeah, good call - the skimmer is indeed the "spiritual successor" to the injector - it's on the same two ships the injector was supposed to go on.
I call shenanigans!  The preview video you posted clearly showed an infernium injector on an Aurora!
...Yes, ok, so that's slightly tongue-in-cheek.  Still, I find the notion of the High Energy Focus on the Aurora to be an odd choice; it can't mount the long-range energy weaponry (HILs or lances) needed to avoid the drawbacks, nor does it have the armor or hull to survive for long with its shields down - even without the extra 50% damage taken.  It's not useless, of course; you can get some good value out of it against overloaded targets or things that you're flanking... but I'd still find the phase skimmer or fortress shield to be a more fitting choice.
...Speaking of which, you may want to consider some more complicated algorithm for "is this ship fire support" than just "does it have any weapon with extreme range" - because Auroras really shouldn't be held on the back lines until they run out of MIRV ammo.


Quote
High Energy Focus - boosts energy weapon damage by 50%, increases damage taken by 50%, can't use shields

    Sunder, Aurora, Odyssey

I'll have to wait to play this and see how it goes. In my mind either 50% extra damage or no shields would be appropriate. Of course I'll probably eat those words the instant I switch this on and gore an overloading enemy to death. My main concern, like a lot of other people, is how this will affect the Tachyon lance. Because of the range tachyon Odyssey's will have no downsides to this ability...

Alex, how do you feel about the Tachyon lance?

We'll see - there hasn't been an awful lot of playtesting, beyond just making sure the systems "feel" good. I have to admit, I hadn't considered the "Odyssey with Tachyon Lances and always-on HEF" angle - but was already thinking of reducing Tachyon Lance range to around 3000 (from 5000). Definitely something to keep an eye out for, though.
My suggestion would be a mix of reduced range (4000 was what I tested) with either further increased flux generation, or less damage; part of the issue, I think, is that the last balance pass, while it did increase flux generation some, also (due to a bug fix on burst beam weapons) increased the lance's damage output by about 50%.  (I think?  Don't have the game in front of me, but if it's still listed as 200 sustained DPS, that's 50% more than it had before.)

As for a "ship around a weapon", I've been thinking about that a bit - came up early on during this dev cycle. *IF* that happens, it probably won't be handled through ship systems. You actually could do this with a mod - easy enough to strap any kind of weapon onto a hull using the same functionality that, say, the flare launcher uses - but the problem would be in making the AI use it. Needs a bit more thought on my end.
We have a ship around a weapon: the Sunder.  We will have another one with this patch: the Omen.  In fact, if I was setting up ship systems, I'd give the Paragon something akin to the Omen's EMP Emitter, spewing lightning bolts from an orb of energy generated in that curious hole in the middle of the ship...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 12, 2012, 01:32:52 PM
Sooooo i guess this means the Omen is finally in the campaign?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on June 12, 2012, 01:48:55 PM
I think you should add small, red lightning arcs to the Burn Drive active engines. Would look hella awesome and you've already got the lightning fx working for the Omen, yeah?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on June 12, 2012, 02:00:41 PM
... especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?

The top speed is 80 now - not great, but no longer horrible. It's still not a good ship, and really isn't supposed to be one.

It's less than mediocre, every other combat ship in the game outperforms it in every way. Speed buff, great, flare system, even better, but if you yourself say that it's still not a good ship then why have it in the game? Variety is always good, no doubt about that, and every ship has its place but for the Buffalo that place happens to be on the scrapyard. Have you considered turning it into a pure missile platform instead? That small energy mount at its front is rather misplaced so it could be switched for something else.

I just want it to have a role that doesn't involve rushing to a station and getting rid of the damn thing as fast as possible.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on June 12, 2012, 02:06:04 PM
If everything is special than nothing is! Sometimes you have to have a few less-than-ideal ships - 'sides the Buffalo has decent cargo capacity and can be sold for a good amount when full repaired.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 12, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
...Yes, ok, so that's slightly tongue-in-cheek.  Still, I find the notion of the High Energy Focus on the Aurora to be an odd choice; it can't mount the long-range energy weaponry (HILs or lances) needed to avoid the drawbacks, nor does it have the armor or hull to survive for long with its shields down - even without the extra 50% damage taken.  It's not useless, of course; you can get some good value out of it against overloaded targets or things that you're flanking... but I'd still find the phase skimmer or fortress shield to be a more fitting choice.

The idea there is to emphasize its role as an offense-oriented ship. A phase skimmer could work to that end as well, but in general, large ships teleporting around seems too powerful. One could go many different ways when assigning ship systems (do you shore up a weakness? emphasize a strength? specialize a ship in a role, or give it more flexibility?), and in many cases, I don't think there's one right answer.

...Speaking of which, you may want to consider some more complicated algorithm for "is this ship fire support" than just "does it have any weapon with extreme range" - because Auroras really shouldn't be held on the back lines until they run out of MIRV ammo.

Yeah, good point.

My suggestion would be a mix of reduced range (4000 was what I tested) with either further increased flux generation, or less damage; part of the issue, I think, is that the last balance pass, while it did increase flux generation some, also (due to a bug fix on burst beam weapons) increased the lance's damage output by about 50%.  (I think?  Don't have the game in front of me, but if it's still listed as 200 sustained DPS, that's 50% more than it had before.)

Hmm. Increasing flux generation on the Tachyon Lance is more like to improve its fire support performance. All that does is make it less viable as a close-range weapon. Reducing the damage might be a good idea... well, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this - it seems too powerful as-is, even before the HEF system.


Sooooo i guess this means the Omen is finally in the campaign?

Yep.

I think you should add small, red lightning arcs to the Burn Drive active engines. Would look hella awesome and you've already got the lightning fx working for the Omen, yeah?

Ah, it's not so simple. There's lightning and there's lightning, and we're probably visualizing different things besides - I'm having trouble picturing lightning along with the engine effects, and it looking coherent and good. Also: that lightning is designed to only be used in a few places, i.e. with appearance rather than performance in mind.


It's less than mediocre, every other combat ship in the game outperforms it in every way. Speed buff, great, flare system, even better, but if you yourself say that it's still not a good ship then why have it in the game? Variety is always good, no doubt about that, and every ship has its place but for the Buffalo that place happens to be on the scrapyard. Have you considered turning it into a pure missile platform instead? That small energy mount at its front is rather misplaced so it could be switched for something else.

I just want it to have a role that doesn't involve rushing to a station and getting rid of the damn thing as fast as possible.

How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful. Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

The speed buff is to make it a bit more of a threat in AI hands - not to make it a particularly appealing choice for the player.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on June 12, 2012, 02:34:04 PM
Well, I'm visualizing tiny little bolts of lightning coursing across the engine - sorta like when overloaded but confined only to the engine area. You know, like they're seething/overcharged with power and energy. Maybe the overload fx, with red/oragen tinting, would be better than the lightning fx after all.

Anyways, these systems should be pretty awesome but thinking of early game against Hounds with flares makes me... ?_?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kommodore Krieg on June 12, 2012, 03:02:16 PM
Well, I'm visualizing tiny little bolts of lightning coursing across the engine - sorta like when overloaded but confined only to the engine area. You know, like they're seething/overcharged with power and energy. Maybe the overload fx, with red/oragen tinting, would be better than the lightning fx after all.

Anyways, these systems should be pretty awesome but thinking of early game against Hounds with flares makes me... ?_?

The engines aren't really overcharging though.  They are using travel drives, which would be quite stable as they must be constantly used for non combat travel, in a combat situation. 
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on June 12, 2012, 03:10:31 PM
but in general, large ships teleporting around seems too powerful.

And now I'm imagining some ultra-slow battlestation that can, once every few minutes (or even just once per battle), teleport to just about anywhere on the tactical map...  That'd be a fun toy to play with.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MidnightSun on June 12, 2012, 03:15:20 PM
These all look like a lot of fun :)

One comment though: should the Tempest really be getting Active Flares? With its high speed and omni-shield, it's already nearly invulnerable to missiles, unless fired when the Tempest ventured too close and is nearly overloaded--and now, in that case, it can just fire off its flares. I'll have to try it, but I think it might be OP and make it even easier for the Tempest to kite far larger ships.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 12, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
The engines aren't really overcharging though.  They are using travel drives, which would be quite stable as they must be constantly used for non combat travel, in a combat situation.  
This is a game, not a real-life combat simulation like Arma 2.  This is where we can enjoy the marvels of Alex's coding. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cerevox on June 12, 2012, 03:22:09 PM
I have this vision in my head of a destroyer using the engine boost and pushing against a frigates shield to accelerate the frigate to silly high speeds, then the frigate coasting at those high speeds until it approaches an enemy cap ship and using its phase skimmer to jump in between the cap ships shields and hull, where it immediately unloads its pair of reapers and proceeds to slam into the cap ships just softened side, doing huge collision damage to the hull hp itself.

Would this be possible, assuming I could get the AI to ram my own ship at the right angle? Not saying it would be effective, but it would be hilarious to watch.

Or can frigates with phase teleporters get inside a cap ship's shields? Some of the cap ships have quite a bit of space in there.

Edit: It sounds like the skimmer keeps current heading and speed of the ship, will teleporters also or do you come out at 0 speed or something like that?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on June 12, 2012, 03:28:23 PM
Can we have Fort shield for aurora? I think it would be useful because it's actually fast enough to get into a favorable position while shielding as opposed to only the paragon who's gonna use it to turtle and little more
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on June 12, 2012, 03:29:26 PM
If everything is special than nothing is! Sometimes you have to have a few less-than-ideal ships - 'sides the Buffalo has decent cargo capacity and can be sold for a good amount when full repaired.

It's a kind of a bad sign if this is the best thing about a ship.  ;)

How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful.

If you do have abilities/skills/perks/something that enhanches it, won't these buffs be for all or for specific ship sizes? Right now I'm speculating since these things have not yet been implemented yet, but shouldn't that make every other ship even more attractive compared to the Buffalo?

Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

Absolutely, when it is justified in cost. Talon squadrons are among the weakest ships in the game, but they're brutally cheap and expandable. I completely understand that not every ship is supposed to tackle a Paragon 1vs1, but every ship has a role of some sorts. The Buffalo has nothing really redeemable about it, it's like a flying kinder egg just waiting to be smashed apart and eaten by the player... and its toy being sold to a trader.

My point is, it lacks a role, it lacks a purpose. If it does have a role or purpose and if that is to either be sold at stations or used as target practice, there are perhaps better ways of doing it. Why not let it retain some of its cargospace or fuel capacity, make it a more heavily armed transport instead?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 12, 2012, 03:30:51 PM
I think the shields have a larger hit box (like the top of a thick circle magnet instead of a rubber band, so to speak) then they seem, so you would still take collision damage.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cerevox on June 12, 2012, 03:45:15 PM
I know the shields are quite thick. Its just, some cap ships rely on their shields and have almost no armor. If you had a small frigate that just had a couple small missile hard points on the front you might be able to fit those launchers in the gap between shield and hull, and if those hard points are single shot reapers you might be able to cripple the cap ship. The frigate won't survive, that's almost a given, but if you could trade a 7k frigate for a paragon, would you?

I can't offhand think of any vanilla frigates you could do this with(lasher's missles are set too far back, vigilance only has one) but there are a couple modded frigates that should be able to pull this off if the teleporter really can land them inside that gap. Or if you could do destroyers, then a hammerhead can fit both 2 reapers and 2 medium ballistic mounts into that gap. It should be able to do some serious damage before the shield kills it. Assuming the cap ship has more flux than the hammerhead has hp, since it would be a straight trade for damage on shield to flux of cap ship for damage to the hammerhead.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on June 12, 2012, 03:48:52 PM
The shield covers the entire wedge of space from ship center to perimeter.  In fact, letting something get closer than that and then turning on your shields will tend to do horrific amounts of damage to the target; this is not a tactic many ships can use, but it will shred most things in very short order if you can pull it off.  The exception is fighters, who get to fly over shields without collision issues.

...Now, imagine a squadron of fighters equipped with phase skimmers...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cerevox on June 12, 2012, 04:07:43 PM
Ahhh, I always assumed there was a gap in there since the actual shield graphics show a small gap near the center, and that bombers are able to launch bombs on the ship itself and have them strike the hull and not the shields.

Bombers with phase skimmers, doing their whole run inside the bounds of the ship itself. Wow.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Catattack998 on June 12, 2012, 05:11:26 PM
This made me consider what would happen if you did just that, but with some modded EMP bombs. The bombers, with their tendency to stray from the center of the ship, would end up knocking out basically every weapon - even the hard-to-reach ones at the ship's center, that are often 360-degree weapons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: evil713 on June 12, 2012, 05:18:18 PM

Also: the pattern that the drones deploy in can be modded - in particular, you can have them deploy in a fixed position, or set up multiple orbits around the ship. I suspect that with a bit of creativity, the could be used to create hulls that transform into a somewhat different shape :) You can also make it alter ship stats in any way you want while drones are deployed (as the Apogee's Sensor Drones do).


HA, i just thought of a series i read "Kris Longknife". with drones you could deploy armor to cover the ship. it's T-1000 Morphin Time!

edit: and dont give the hound a flare launcher, that thing is hard enought to hit with missles it dosent need the help.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 12, 2012, 05:42:15 PM
How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful.

If you do have abilities/skills/perks/something that enhanches it, won't these buffs be for all or for specific ship sizes? Right now I'm speculating since these things have not yet been implemented yet, but shouldn't that make every other ship even more attractive compared to the Buffalo?

Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

Absolutely, when it is justified in cost. Talon squadrons are among the weakest ships in the game, but they're brutally cheap and expandable. I completely understand that not every ship is supposed to tackle a Paragon 1vs1, but every ship has a role of some sorts. The Buffalo has nothing really redeemable about it, it's like a flying kinder egg just waiting to be smashed apart and eaten by the player... and its toy being sold to a trader.

My point is, it lacks a role, it lacks a purpose. If it does have a role or purpose and if that is to either be sold at stations or used as target practice, there are perhaps better ways of doing it. Why not let it retain some of its cargospace or fuel capacity, make it a more heavily armed transport instead?

I don't think my point quite came across. What I was saying is that a low-end destroyer (of which this is an extreme case) will not be useful in the campaign as it stands now, due to how easy it is to acquire a better one. How much of a limiting factor availability ends up being remains to be be seen, but as it stands, to make the Buffalo Mk2 an appealing choice to the player, it would have to be balanced against better ships in terms of what it brings - whether it's in combat or non-combat capacity. It would then stop being a bad ship - but it's supposed to be - so, it makes no sense to do this now.

It's meant to be the kind of thing you use because you couldn't get anything better at the time - but now, that's never the case. So, I'll revisit it (and lots of other things) when the campaign is further along. Giving it somewhat better campaign-level stats might not be a bad idea, though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on June 12, 2012, 07:04:16 PM
  • Bombing runs and fighters firing at a ship while directly on top of it will no longer hit the bounds, but rather other points inside the hull
[/li][/list]


So bombers are supposed to drop their bomb payload within the ship's boundaries?



Also some more suggestions:

AI changes for dealing with different missile variants:

Swarmers are to be considered VERY LOW priority for taking on the shield and dodging for frigate and larger ships.  This prevents shields from trying to block a missile while they should be blocking/dodging the Onslaught firing helborne cannons at it.

Annihilator missiles are to be considered projectiles rather than missiles for all intents and purposes.

Missiles that carry an explosive payload are much higher priority to blocking than Fragmentation or Kinetic Missiles.

Change AI behavior for a special 'Mining' behavior for using bomb bays and phase charges.



Make the Phase charge cost lower OP and make it a SMALL missile weapon.

VASTLY increase the health on and add armor to:  Cluster Bombs, Standard Bombs, Frag Bombs, and Phase Charges.  They're far too easily countered by flak guns.

Make the AI that's being told to capture points to keep close and not to pursue enemies until it's captured and to block the loss of a point when set to defend.

Make the AI drop and quickly-raise it's shield if it cannot rotate it fast enough to block a blow (Only of it's OMNI) and there's no other high-threat weapons firing at it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 12, 2012, 07:08:52 PM
Well, isn't that what Flak is for?  Personally, I think energy weapons are suited for anti-fighter while flak excels with anti-missile/bomb threats.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cerevox on June 12, 2012, 09:30:07 PM
Flak is so great against bombs because they tend to come in clustered and slow which allows flak to take out large groups of them at once. Burst PD is near useless against any real volume of missiles/bombs, but is great at taking out fighters(and salamanders when they are doing their circling motion to get to the rear, flak can't hit them in that phase for anything.)

Smarter PD weapons would be nice though. They should know that hitting a single missile with all 8 burst PD lasers is overkill. OR perhaps a hull add-on that allows your PD to self coordinate? Having PD call and eliminate targets to maximize efficiency would be amazing, instead of having your burst PD spam itself out on an annihilator barrage while your flak wastes its time on heavy fighters that take near no damage from it. Would also be nice if the PD could tell if it had multiple dual flak cannons or just a single burst PD, to decide if it really wants to spend the effort on clearing out a huge wave of annihilator rockets or just catch them on a shield.

Assuming PD drones don't just obliterate all incoming missiles anyway.

Also, I don't think bombers are supposed to be trying to unload inside a ship's bounds, but if they find themselves inside the bounds they will often drop a couple of bombs. Try a quick paragon Vs mass bombers, don't shoot down any bombers and watch what they do at the end of their run.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on June 12, 2012, 11:18:59 PM
What about cloaking and scanning the cloaked ships?
What about writing custom AI?
What about drive or engines inhibition to make ship unmovable?
What about weapon jamming and improved weapon targeting?
What about adding all these new modules through hull mods?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 13, 2012, 12:46:42 AM
It would then stop being a bad ship - but it's supposed to be - so, it makes no sense to do this now.

It's meant to be the kind of thing you use because you couldn't get anything better at the time - but now, that's never the case. So, I'll revisit it (and lots of other things) when the campaign is further along. Giving it somewhat better campaign-level stats might not be a bad idea, though.

i think the issue is just that its so expensive for being so bad. Why would pirates buy it at its current price? being an all around bad ship even in the campaign is a role thats cool to exist but then the price should really reflect it or it wouldn't even exist in the world at all.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on June 13, 2012, 01:06:15 AM
I agree it could at least be cheaper....
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Talkie Toaster on June 13, 2012, 06:12:36 AM
i think the issue is just that its so expensive for being so bad. Why would pirates buy it at its current price? being an all around bad ship even in the campaign is a role thats cool to exist but then the price should really reflect it or it wouldn't even exist in the world at all.
But the pirates don't buy it. The point of the Buffalo Mk 2 is it's a crude refit of the Mk 1 transport, the pirates capture Mk 1s from traders and turn them into things that roughly approximate a combat ship. It's certainly better than a Buffalo Mk 1 in a fight, and even with how bad it is a Mk 2 + Lasher is a better fleet than just a single Lasher. If anything, the price should reflect the demand from traders for the hulls to convert back into Mk 1s.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on June 13, 2012, 07:01:47 AM
Buffalo is mainly for firesupport, the only problem I see with it is that it's armor is too low for lacking a shield and that it has a lot of small missile slots which are quickly expended and wasted.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 13, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
i think the issue is just that its so expensive for being so bad. Why would pirates buy it at its current price? being an all around bad ship even in the campaign is a role thats cool to exist but then the price should really reflect it or it wouldn't even exist in the world at all.

Unless, scarcity. Anything is better then nothing, and if no other ships are available then even the worst ships become pricey.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 13, 2012, 08:48:59 AM
I think the Buffalo Mk II would be more of a threat, but still easy to destroy if you corner one, if it had 2 medium launchers instead of one. Painful fire support, crappy platform.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on June 13, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
Honestly, I'd just suggest swapping two of its salamader launchers for swarmers; that alone would make it a more credible threat.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 13, 2012, 09:20:57 AM
Honestly, I'd just suggest swapping two of its salamader launchers for swarmers; that alone would make it a more credible threat.

Or Harpoons. That would make them credibly dangerous if you are unfortunate enough to vent near them.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 13, 2012, 10:48:02 AM
Unless, scarcity. Anything is better then nothing, and if no other ships are available then even the worst ships become pricey.

If scarcity was an issue the value of all other ships would rise at the same pace...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 13, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
Unless, scarcity. Anything is better then nothing, and if no other ships are available then even the worst ships become pricey.

If scarcity was an issue the value of all other ships would rise at the same pace...
Unless there's more of them? Haha.  Supply and demand is weird.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: noego on June 13, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
Unless, scarcity. Anything is better then nothing, and if no other ships are available then even the worst ships become pricey.

If scarcity was an issue the value of all other ships would rise at the same pace...

The economy needs to be implemented. Though that's probably a boring and complicated thing. But makes my eyes sparkle!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 13, 2012, 11:40:28 AM
The economy needs to be implemented. Though that's probably a boring and complicated thing. But makes my eyes sparkle!

Complicated? Certainly. Boring? Certainly not!


Re: Buffalo 2 - I think the horse you're beating might be deceased :) I get what you're saying, but seeing how there isn't an economy at this point, it's not exactly something that can be argued one way or another, or dealt with in a satisfactory manner. For now, the Buffalo 2 role is squarely that of "punching bag". And some fire support - it's not quite useless, though there are better choices.


What about cloaking and scanning the cloaked ships?
What about writing custom AI?
What about drive or engines inhibition to make ship unmovable?
What about weapon jamming and improved weapon targeting?
What about adding all these new modules through hull mods?

What about it? :) Seriously, though, there's an almost unlimited number of ship systems that could be made. Custom AI... it's a possibility, at some point. Would require a good amount of work on the API, though, which is why I'm holding off on it.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 13, 2012, 11:58:20 AM
The economy needs to be implemented. Though that's probably a boring and complicated thing. But makes my eyes sparkle!

Complicated? Certainly. Boring? Certainly not!


Re: Buffalo 2 - I think the horse you're beating might be deceased :) I get what you're saying, but seeing how there isn't an economy at this point, it's not exactly something that can be argued one way or another, or dealt with in a satisfactory manner. For now, the Buffalo 2 role is squarely that of "punching bag". And some fire support - it's not quite useless, though there are better choices.
: D


What about cloaking and scanning the cloaked ships?
What about writing custom AI?
What about drive or engines inhibition to make ship unmovable?
What about weapon jamming and improved weapon targeting?
What about adding all these new modules through hull mods?

What about it? :) Seriously, though, there's an almost unlimited number of ship systems that could be made. Custom AI... it's a possibility, at some point. Would require a good amount of work on the API, though, which is why I'm holding off on it.
Awesome.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KDR_11k on June 13, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
The Buffalo's role is clearly to be the first destroyer you fight while your fleet still consists of frigates. Every game needs mooks, otherwise how will the player get something adequate to gfight in those early battles?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Typhoon_555 on June 13, 2012, 03:00:24 PM

  • Phase Teleporter - teleports anywhere (to cursor location) within a significant range (~1500 pixels)
    • Hyperion



Is it ok that my current Hyperion can kill an Onslaught and take no damage? This just makes it easier.



Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 13, 2012, 03:06:15 PM
Ah but what about when it can burn drive away long enough for his escorts to swoop in?

EDIT: Should at least be more interesting now.  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 13, 2012, 03:08:13 PM
Ah but what about when it can burn drive away long enough for his escorts to swoop in?

EDIT: Should at least be more interesting now.  :)

And while he's trying to burn-drive away, the hyperion pops two AM shots down his tailpipe, disabling his engines, and then closes in for the finish with either two reapers or two atroposes. Fun times ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Typhoon_555 on June 13, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
That brings a question to mind. If the engines are disabled, can the burndrive still activate or is it useless until the engines are back online?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 13, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
That brings a question to mind. If the engines are disabled, can the burndrive still activate or is it useless until the engines are back online?
Also what if you burn drive outside map boundaries? Or teleport for that matter.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 13, 2012, 03:31:27 PM
That brings a question to mind. If the engines are disabled, can the burndrive still activate or is it useless until the engines are back online?

I believe you cannot use it until the engines are repaired.

Also, i think you cannot teleport outside of the map, but that's just me rambling...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: noego on June 13, 2012, 05:52:00 PM
The economy needs to be implemented. Though that's probably a boring and complicated thing. But makes my eyes sparkle!

Complicated? Certainly. Boring? Certainly not!


[/quote]

Dat attitude. The world needs more of it. Keep it going. Thanks!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 13, 2012, 08:24:59 PM
I believe you cannot use it until the engines are repaired.

Also, i think you cannot teleport outside of the map, but that's just me rambling...
I'll bet it possible with the Phase Skimmer, but you probably end up with similar results as just moving to the edge of the map.

Hmm, I hope the ships that have the Phase Skimmer skip at different distances, with the smaller ships skipping much further distances.

EDIT: I hope the distance is not dependent on your current movement speed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on June 14, 2012, 09:33:54 AM
 :D
I see we finally get custom engine stuff!

(Sorry, am pretty inactive atm due to finals & stuff)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 14, 2012, 11:29:41 AM
That ECCM hullmod sounds friggin awesome. Finally i can hit those hounds with my harpoons! I hope
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 14, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
That ECCM hullmod sounds friggin awesome. Finally i can hit those hounds with my harpoons! I hope

Good luck making those missiles catch him....

Not talking about his new flare system.


In other words:   The hound after the update will be the ultimate "troll and rage-inducing machine to ever exist"
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 14, 2012, 12:51:23 PM
Quote
EMP Emitter - targets missiles and nearby ship's weapon and engine subsystems, dealing a lot of EMP damage (and some energy). Mostly neutralized by shields.
        Omen

I just realized... is that EMP damage going to be enough to knock unshielded fighters out cold in one shot? I'm guessing thats the point in which case... damn! Thats awesome!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on June 14, 2012, 08:16:55 PM
Quote
EMP Emitter - targets missiles and nearby ship's weapon and engine subsystems, dealing a lot of EMP damage (and some energy). Mostly neutralized by shields.
        Omen

A major point of concern, Alex.....Which one of the following three target-sets will this EMP shipsystem engage:

 1) All enemy missiles & enemy ships within its EMP range?  (best-case result)

 2) Only enemy missiles targeted specifically at the Omen, plus any enemy ships within range?  (median result, but IMHO inadequate)

 3 ) ALL missiles & ships within its range, friend and foe alike??  (worst-case result)

The answer will have a tremendous impact upon the shipsystem itself as well as all future modder use of it, so I'm...well...kind of nervous until this gets decisively nailed down. :-[ TIA for any clarification you can provide.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2012, 08:40:41 PM
That brings a question to mind. If the engines are disabled, can the burndrive still activate or is it useless until the engines are back online?

Can't use it.

Also, i think you cannot teleport outside of the map, but that's just me rambling...

Yeah, no teleporting outside the map. At first you could, though, but I fixed that right up :)

Hmm, I hope the ships that have the Phase Skimmer skip at different distances, with the smaller ships skipping much further distances.

EDIT: I hope the distance is not dependent on your current movement speed.

It's a fixed distance (configured in the system definition). Not based on speed or ship size.

I just realized... is that EMP damage going to be enough to knock unshielded fighters out cold in one shot? I'm guessing thats the point in which case... damn! Thats awesome!

One or two shots, yes :)

Quote
EMP Emitter - targets missiles and nearby ship's weapon and engine subsystems, dealing a lot of EMP damage (and some energy). Mostly neutralized by shields.
        Omen

A major point of concern, Alex.....Which one of the following three target-sets will this EMP shipsystem engage:

 1) All enemy missiles & enemy ships within its EMP range?  (best-case result)

 2) Only enemy missiles targeted specifically at the Omen, plus any enemy ships within range?  (median result, but IMHO inadequate)

 3 ) ALL missiles & ships within its range, friend and foe alike??  (worst-case result)

The answer will have a tremendous impact upon the shipsystem itself as well as all future modder use of it, so I'm...well...kind of nervous until this gets decisively nailed down. :-[ TIA for any clarification you can provide.

It's #1. What it actually does is target enemy missiles, and the actual engines/weapons on enemy ships and fighters. So, it delivers all the EMP damage right where it's doing to be most effective at disabling stuff. For fighters, that means it'll knock out their engines very fast. VS a ship like the Enforcer, the lightning will dance around all the weapon mounts and engine nozzles, knocking out absolutely everything with ease - unless, of course, the ship uses shields. There's also a slight energy damage component to the EMP arcs (both damage type, amount, and emp damage amount are moddable, as well as the range at which it works).

For missiles, a single hit *always* knocks out the missile's engine, leaving it to fizzle out in a bit. Missiles already knocked out are much less likely to be targeted by repeated EMP blasts - so, for example, if there are 3 Pilums coming in, the most likely outcome is they'll all get their engines knocked out first, and then, assuming no other targets are in range, the system will continue to hit the disabled missiles - eventually destroying them with energy damage.

The order in which things are targeted is entirely random, though it's a weighted random. (Less likely for knocked-out missiles, more likely for something near something that was already hit).

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on June 14, 2012, 08:52:01 PM
Quote
EMP Emitter - targets missiles and nearby ship's weapon and engine subsystems, dealing a lot of EMP damage (and some energy). Mostly neutralized by shields.
        Omen

A major point of concern, Alex.....Which one of the following three target-sets will this EMP shipsystem engage:

 1) All enemy missiles & enemy ships within its EMP range?  (best-case result)

 2) Only enemy missiles targeted specifically at the Omen, plus any enemy ships within range?  (median result, but IMHO inadequate)

 3 ) ALL missiles & ships within its range, friend and foe alike??  (worst-case result)

The answer will have a tremendous impact upon the shipsystem itself as well as all future modder use of it, so I'm...well...kind of nervous until this gets decisively nailed down. :-[ TIA for any clarification you can provide.

It's #1. What it actually does is target enemy missiles, and the actual engines/weapons on enemy ships and fighters. So, it delivers all the EMP damage right where it's doing to be most effective at disabling stuff. For fighters, that means it'll knock out their engines very fast. VS a ship like the Enforcer, the lightning will dance around all the weapon mounts and engine nozzles, knocking out absolutely everything with ease - unless, of course, the ship uses shields. There's also a slight energy damage component to the EMP arcs (both damage type, amount, and emp damage amount are moddable, as well as the range at which it works).

For missiles, a single hit *always* knocks out the missile's engine, leaving it to fizzle out in a bit. Missiles already knocked out are much less likely to be targeted by repeated EMP blasts - so, for example, if there are 3 Pilums coming in, the most likely outcome is they'll all get their engines knocked out first, and then, assuming no other targets are in range, the system will continue to hit the disabled missiles - eventually destroying them with energy damage.

The order in which things are targeted is entirely random, though it's a weighted random. (Less likely for knocked-out missiles, more likely for something near something that was already hit).

Thanks ever so much for the detailed (and quick) answer, as well as your chosen method for the EMP effect! If there was an emoticon handy for "massive sigh of relief," I'd be using it.

The Omen became my kid's "eventual favorite ship" once I mentioned the upcoming EMP device. I'm now doubly certain that it's going to get a lot of play. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 14, 2012, 09:56:56 PM
Srsly. Ship that shoots lightning? I'm all in.  :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Okim on June 14, 2012, 11:34:24 PM
Sooo. EMP system is actually a fine-tuned Lightning Field :)

Once again - those lightnings will be fired from the same SYSTEM hardpoints?

I still can`t get the whole SYSTEM hardpoint feature. The more you have those on a ship - the more drones, flares and lightnings you`ll get?

Also - can you modify the drone`s weapons? I remember you saying that you can recreate similar systems by slightly adjusting the existing ones. So i assume that it is possible to have multiple drone systems with various weapons, images, numbers etc. defined (not per ship, but in overall)?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on June 15, 2012, 12:20:13 AM
Sooo. EMP system is actually a fine-tuned Lightning Field :)

Once again - those lightnings will be fired from the same SYSTEM hardpoints?

I still can`t get the whole SYSTEM hardpoint feature. The more you have those on a ship - the more drones, flares and lightnings you`ll get?

Also - can you modify the drone`s weapons? I remember you saying that you can recreate similar systems by slightly adjusting the existing ones. So i assume that it is possible to have multiple drone systems with various weapons, images, numbers etc. defined (not per ship, but in overall)?

Massive drone screens in Ironclads, is what I got out of that message.  :D

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on June 15, 2012, 01:59:17 AM
Sooo. EMP system is actually a fine-tuned Lightning Field :)

Once again - those lightnings will be fired from the same SYSTEM hardpoints?

I still can`t get the whole SYSTEM hardpoint feature. The more you have those on a ship - the more drones, flares and lightnings you`ll get?

Also - can you modify the drone`s weapons? I remember you saying that you can recreate similar systems by slightly adjusting the existing ones. So i assume that it is possible to have multiple drone systems with various weapons, images, numbers etc. defined (not per ship, but in overall)?

There's not a new type of hardpoint, each hull type gets one ship system specific to its hull. In other words, you can't customize what ship system a hull has from within the game.

In order to do the things you're describing, you'd have to mod the game.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 15, 2012, 06:05:35 AM
(both damage type, amount, and emp damage amount are moddable, as well as the range at which it works)

This is just as genius for modding as the drones are.

It's actually very close to a "fixed on-ship weapon".






Sooo. EMP system is actually a fine-tuned Lightning Field :)

Once again - those lightnings will be fired from the same SYSTEM hardpoints?

I still can`t get the whole SYSTEM hardpoint feature. The more you have those on a ship - the more drones, flares and lightnings you`ll get?

Also - can you modify the drone`s weapons? I remember you saying that you can recreate similar systems by slightly adjusting the existing ones. So i assume that it is possible to have multiple drone systems with various weapons, images, numbers etc. defined (not per ship, but in overall)?

There's not a new type of hardpoint, each hull type gets one ship system specific to its hull. In other words, you can't customize what ship system a hull has from within the game.

In order to do the things you're describing, you'd have to mod the game.



Well, Okim is a modder, don't worry about that.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 15, 2012, 11:26:20 AM
That ECCM hullmod sounds friggin awesome. Finally i can hit those hounds with my harpoons! I hope

Good luck making those missiles catch him....

Not talking about his new flare system.


In other words:   The hound after the update will be the ultimate "troll and rage-inducing machine to ever exist"
But the ECCM helps missiles ignore flares...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 15, 2012, 11:42:10 AM
Thanks ever so much for the detailed (and quick) answer, as well as your chosen method for the EMP effect! If there was an emoticon handy for "massive sigh of relief," I'd be using it.

The Omen became my kid's "eventual favorite ship" once I mentioned the upcoming EMP device. I'm now doubly certain that it's going to get a lot of play. ;D

Oh, very cool :)


Once again - those lightnings will be fired from the same SYSTEM hardpoints?

I still can`t get the whole SYSTEM hardpoint feature. The more you have those on a ship - the more drones, flares and lightnings you`ll get?

Also - can you modify the drone`s weapons? I remember you saying that you can recreate similar systems by slightly adjusting the existing ones. So i assume that it is possible to have multiple drone systems with various weapons, images, numbers etc. defined (not per ship, but in overall)?

(The info below is modding-related - not related to actually playing the game)

I think it'll make more sense once you actually get your hands on it. For flares (and other "fake weapon" based systems), yeah, more hardpoints means more "weapons". For drones, it means more launch points - so the drones are launched faster, but that's it. For lightning, it only ever uses one (the first) SYSTEM hardpoint.

For drones: yes, you can create new drones - they're implemented as ships, with .ship and .variant files. At one point I had an Onslaught launching Onslaughts that launched Onslaughts. That ended very badly - imagine this, but with Onslaughts:

(http://fractalsoftworks.com/public/gemini.jpg) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/public/gemini.jpg)

:)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 15, 2012, 11:53:28 AM
Interesting. This means there's potential to make this some sort of launchable armor or barrier system.

Do these drones have a fighter-style collision setup? The Onslaught/Gemini issue noted above would indicate that there would be huge problems if they didn't :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 15, 2012, 12:01:52 PM
Will you be able to add a ship system to a new ship from a mod?  Just wondering.

And the lightning bolt for the Omen, is that from a texture or made from coding?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 15, 2012, 12:07:16 PM
Will you be able to add a ship system to a new ship from a mod?  Just wondering.

And the lightning bolt for the Omen, is that from a texture or made from coding?
I think he said the system is determined in mod able files. So yes, you'll be able to add systems to modded ships.

The lightning is generated in code (info gleaned from twitter)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 15, 2012, 12:09:49 PM
Epic!  Now, I want to see a talon spawn a talon over and over again. ;D Or have the Scourge multiply endlessly!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 15, 2012, 12:13:56 PM
Epic!  Now, I want to see a talon spawn a talon over and over again. ;D

Talonception! :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 15, 2012, 12:16:02 PM
Or have the Scourge multiply endlessly!

(http://www.thebort.com/www/Smileys/default/whistle.gif)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 15, 2012, 12:45:10 PM
That ECCM hullmod sounds friggin awesome. Finally i can hit those hounds with my harpoons! I hope

Good luck making those missiles catch him....

Not talking about his new flare system.


In other words:   The hound after the update will be the ultimate "troll and rage-inducing machine to ever exist"
But the ECCM helps missiles ignore flares...

AND makes them faster! YAY!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 15, 2012, 12:46:35 PM
Wait, the Apogee gets Ion-cannon armed drones?  Isn't that a little bit...OP?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 15, 2012, 12:51:55 PM
Eh, ion cannons aren't THAT good. Especially considering how weak the drones will be. And they do nothing against shields.

EDIT: I do admit worrying about the same thing a bit, though.  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on June 15, 2012, 12:55:23 PM

For drones: yes, you can create new drones - they're implemented as ships, with .ship and .variant files. At one point I had an Onslaught launching Onslaughts that launched Onslaughts. That ended very badly - imagine this, but with Onslaughts:

*snip*

:)

Note to self: first thing to do once .53a is released is to make a binary fission simulator.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on June 15, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
Any plans for multi-stage missiles to have drones? I can just imagine having a missile heading towards my ship then BLAM! Squad of wasps :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 15, 2012, 02:50:44 PM
Or have the Scourge multiply endlessly!

(http://www.thebort.com/www/Smileys/default/whistle.gif)
I shouldn't have said that... ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 15, 2012, 02:52:44 PM
This drone talk has gone too far.



No, no it hasn't. Why not have a buffalo MK 2 spawn a trio of onslaughts? PUNCHING BAG NO MORE.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on June 15, 2012, 03:24:38 PM
So what is the downside of the Hyperion's teleporter? And if there isn't one, what is the cooldown?

I'm worried that I could warp in behind a ship, let loose all of my torpedoes before they can get their shields up, and then warp back without taking any damage.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 15, 2012, 03:30:07 PM
So what is the downside of the Hyperion's teleporter? And if there isn't one, what is the cooldown?

I'm worried that I could warp in behind a ship, let loose all of my torpedoes before they can get their shields up, and then warp back without taking any damage.

Now, imagine this with that idea someone suggested of having carriers repair and re-arm frigates. O_O, epic overkill.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 15, 2012, 04:57:11 PM
This drone talk has gone too far.



No, no it hasn't. Why not have a buffalo MK 2 spawn a trio of onslaughts? PUNCHING BAG NO MORE.

You know, it would probably be really easy to do this stealthily with a mod. Add an extra space to the name and sneak it into a few fleets. Hide the whole package in another mod as a nice surprise.  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on June 16, 2012, 08:25:54 PM
What about it? :)
1) Will I be able to put more then one system per ship?
2) Will I be able to make hull mods to add another system on ship per installation?
3) Do you intend to add cloaking, stealth and other cover ops related stuff?
4) Do you intend to add drive, engines, teleportation inhibition stuff?
5) Do you intend to add weapon jamming and missile jammers/redirectors?

Seriously, though, there's an almost unlimited number of ship systems that could be made.
Yep, such thing limited only by imagination of creator and... you don't have problem with this, aside from the damage types :P

Custom AI... it's a possibility, at some point. Would require a good amount of work on the API, though, which is why I'm holding off on it.
Good to know... that there is a possibility for one. Because if it will be possible, players will be able to encounter my second self in my mod :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 16, 2012, 08:32:02 PM
I'm worried that I could warp in behind a ship, let loose all of my torpedoes before they can get their shields up, and then warp back without taking any damage.
Yeah, I'm also worried about this. The Hyperion already has the highest firepower and largest shield of any frigate (at least, I think), if it can just jump everywhere at any time you'd basically have to fill the entire area with missiles before you could even stand a chance of hitting it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on June 16, 2012, 09:07:25 PM
I'm sure the cooldown for the teleporter is long enough to prevent the Hyperion from doing that. And if it isn't, a simple downside such as temporarily disabled shields after a teleport would prevent a player from unloading missiles up an Onslaught's backdoor without thinking twice.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 16, 2012, 09:12:09 PM
I'm sure the cooldown for the teleporter is long enough to prevent the Hyperion from doing that. And if it isn't, a simple downside such as temporarily disabled shields after a teleport would prevent a player from unloading missiles up an Onslaught's backdoor without thinking twice.
That would limit the teleporter to only a escape system instead of being able to use it for both offensive and defensive maneuvers.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 16, 2012, 10:47:31 PM
Not really. Just because you don't have shields doesn't mean you can't still put up a tough fight with the enemy even with minimal armor and integrity. The Hyperion is fast, and with the teleporter it can choose what guns will be firing at it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 16, 2012, 11:10:42 PM
Not really. Just because you don't have shields doesn't mean you can't still put up a tough fight with the enemy even with minimal armor and integrity. The Hyperion is fast, and with the teleporter it can choose what guns will be firing at it.
The Hyperion simply can't rely on its puny armor and speed is meaningless at point blank range. It really needs its shields. You already have a risk when using the teleporter, if you teleport yourself into combat you are at risk, systems come with a cooldown timer, using it to move in behind an onslaught and being unable to get away instantly is a big risk all of its own.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 17, 2012, 01:20:16 AM
The Hyperion simply can't rely on its puny armor and speed is meaningless at point blank range.
Who said you needed to get into point blank range? You have medium energy slots, and missile slots, you don't need to get into point blank range.

You already have a risk when using the teleporter, if you teleport yourself into combat you are at risk,
Why would you teleport yourself into combat instead of burning your engines for a few more seconds? Wouldn't you use it to teleport behind your enemies instead? ;)

systems come with a cooldown timer
Yes, I'm pretty sure I've caught that by myself from the various things said around this thread.

using it to move in behind an onslaught and being unable to get away instantly is a big risk all of its own.
Yes it's risky, especially without the shields. But it's not an impossible move to teleport behind your enemy and let loose, no? If it's not impossible, then it doesn't limit the teleporter to an escape system, does it? ;)

Also, it doesn't specifically need to be an Onslaught. It could just be a Dominator, an Eagle, or so on. There are plenty of ships that have very poor rear guns, worse than the Onslaught.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on June 17, 2012, 03:23:35 AM
What if instead of shields going down after a teleport, it took 2-3 seconds of "charge" from when you start the system from when you teleport. During this time shields could be forced down with the justification that "its channeling power from the shields"

This would maintain offensive capability but make it less viable as an escape tool, which imo would be somewhat cool.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KDR_11k on June 17, 2012, 05:22:05 AM
I think instant jumps would make it more interesting (dodge projectiles that way!) but maybe your shields could not be re-enabled for a few seconds after the teleport. Keep in mind that the enemy will also need some time to turn its guns towards your new position so it's not an instant kill.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 17, 2012, 07:22:34 AM
I think instant jumps would make it more interesting (dodge projectiles that way!) but maybe your shields could not be re-enabled for a few seconds after the teleport. Keep in mind that the enemy will also need some time to turn its guns towards your new position so it's not an instant kill.
Are you implying that the turrets on the back of a ship can point forward? If it where are Hammerhead yeah but not on most ships.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Starlight on June 17, 2012, 08:49:18 AM
I'm really hoping we can make a system which toggles on and off and trades a reduced shield arc for better damage efficiency.  It would work wonders for narrow ships burdened by wide shield bubbles in combat with larger ships (yes I'm thinking of my ships in particular) whilst still having a reasonable defense against fighters and peripheral threats.   At the moment it's kind of either/or in terms of reasonable balance.   Having a system which provided this flexibility would increase tactical options and flexibility. 
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 17, 2012, 09:12:21 AM
I'm really hoping we can make a system which toggles on and off and trades a reduced shield arc for better damage efficiency.  It would work wonders for narrow ships burdened by wide shield bubbles in combat with larger ships (yes I'm thinking of my ships in particular) whilst still having a reasonable defense against fighters and peripheral threats.   At the moment it's kind of either/or in terms of reasonable balance.   Having a system which provided this flexibility would increase tactical options and flexibility. 
Nice idea, make a suggestion out of it!!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on June 17, 2012, 10:28:33 AM
I was wondering, if it would be possible to mod the pd drone system to create something like drone weapons from Stargate?   http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Drone_weapon (http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Drone_weapon)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hyph_K31 on June 17, 2012, 12:09:33 PM
Thats way easy. we can do that with missiles.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: FlashFrozen on June 17, 2012, 01:03:15 PM
Just a lil tidbit, can the drone subsystem be installed on a ship without a landing deck? since atm I notice they are on ships that essentially carriers possibly to aid in launching and landing?  I have a feeling that it's standalone though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on June 17, 2012, 01:05:18 PM
the blog seems to imply it can...

I think it has another set of hardpoints specifically for systems
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 17, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
Hi guys - just wanted to let you know that I'm out of town this week (vacation!)

I'm going to actually try to tear myself away from everything (yeah, right... well, I'll try) and get some rest, so, if you don't see me around here much, that's why, and my apologies :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 17, 2012, 01:38:59 PM
Just a lil tidbit, can the drone subsystem be installed on a ship without a landing deck? since atm I notice they are on ships that essentially carriers possibly to aid in launching and landing?  I have a feeling that it's standalone though.
Ship systems use their own hardpoints so yes its possible to have these on ships that don't have a landing deck. Its most obvious when you consider that the Apogee is going to get this system yet does not have a landing deck.

Hi guys - just wanted to let you know that I'm out of town this week (vacation!)

I'm going to actually try to tear myself away from everything (yeah, right... well, I'll try) and get some rest, so, if you don't see me around here much, that's why, and my apologies :)
Well at least we know that the next update won't be for at least another week.

Have fun, don't worry about us, we'll take good care of the forum.  ::)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nooblies on June 17, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
Burn it down, burn it all down!

Bwahahahaha!

Hahaha!

Haha.

Ha...

Oh, Alex is still here. Feel free to ignore me for the time being.

p.s. Enjoy the vacation eh!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gothars on June 17, 2012, 02:11:43 PM
Hi guys - just wanted to let you know that I'm out of town this week (vacation!)

I'm going to actually try to tear myself away from everything (yeah, right... well, I'll try) and get some rest, so, if you don't see me around here much, that's why, and my apologies :)

Vacation feature confirmed: Shore leave for all crew leads to a temporary performance increase! .... Have fun:)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 17, 2012, 02:51:30 PM
Hi guys - just wanted to let you know that I'm out of town this week (vacation!)

I'm going to actually try to tear myself away from everything (yeah, right... well, I'll try) and get some rest, so, if you don't see me around here much, that's why, and my apologies :)
No need to apologize man, you have already given us many things other games have failed to give, and for only $10.

Burn it down, burn it all down!

Bwahahahaha!

Hahaha!

Haha.

Ha...

Oh, Alex is still here. Feel free to ignore me for the time being.
Hah, good luck on burning the forums down. If B12 can survive on two moderators (one, most of the time), you're not going to get far on a far smaller forum with (I'm pretty sure) more than two moderators. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 17, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
Hi guys - just wanted to let you know that I'm out of town this week (vacation!)

I'm going to actually try to tear myself away from everything (yeah, right... well, I'll try) and get some rest, so, if you don't see me around here much, that's why, and my apologies :)

Have some not-pc-related fun!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 17, 2012, 03:15:35 PM
Your crew eagerly await your return. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 17, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
Your crew eagerly await your return. ;D

We do?

Ehm, i mean, YES, SIR WE DO!

(actually, we do?)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on June 17, 2012, 06:44:58 PM
*maniacal laugh*
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 17, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Your crew eagerly await your return. ;D
I'm not so sure about that, Alex did get Bob and Bobby killed by not paying attention to a Lasher's Harpoon barrage.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 18, 2012, 02:39:21 AM
I have to ask, can a fighter craft have a ship system?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 18, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
Your crew eagerly await your return. ;D
I'm not so sure about that, Alex did get Bob and Bobby killed by not paying attention to a Lasher's Harpoon barrage.

Who's Bob and bobby?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 18, 2012, 11:53:38 AM
Saw this today, made me laugh. Also think of starfarer.

(http://oi48.tinypic.com/29euc7.jpg)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 18, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Saw this today, made me laugh. Also think of starfarer.

Spoiler
(http://oi48.tinypic.com/29euc7.jpg)
[close]
xD
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on June 18, 2012, 03:42:54 PM
lol
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 18, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
*Looks at the chart*

"Commander, it seems we have a new threat to homeland security"
"What do you wish to do, sir?"
"We'll play a waiting game at first, but once they grow to a larger threat, we'll try to annex then into the EA corp. If they become to unmanageable, we'll destroy their economy. Got that, commander?"
"Yes sir."


Sadly, that's the truth about EA these days :(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SpacePirate on June 18, 2012, 04:09:19 PM
Still no mining?  :'(
I don't wanna play without it... bring it on :D.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 19, 2012, 08:11:37 AM
*Looks at the chart*

"Commander, it seems we have a new threat to homeland security"
"What do you wish to do, sir?"
"We'll play a waiting game at first, but once they grow to a larger threat, we'll try to annex then into the EA corp. If they become to unmanageable, we'll destroy their economy. Got that, commander?"
"Yes sir."


Sadly, that's the truth about EA these days :(
Please, Fractal, never be bought by a bigger company.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 19, 2012, 08:22:34 AM
Still no mining?  :'(
I don't wanna play without it... bring it on :D.

Why do people always love to do boring stuff in a videogame!

JK bro, I like growing a fortune too.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SpacePirate on June 19, 2012, 08:39:57 AM
Still no mining?  :'(
I don't wanna play without it... bring it on :D.

Why do people always love to do boring stuff in a videogame!

JK bro, I like growing a fortune too.
Because I always get smoked with the beginners Ship by a huge ass fleet -.-.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 19, 2012, 10:06:25 AM
Still no mining?  :'(
I don't wanna play without it... bring it on :D.

Why do people always love to do boring stuff in a videogame!

JK bro, I like growing a fortune too.
Because I always get smoked with the beginners Ship by a huge ass fleet -.-.


Why do you let a huge ass fleet catch you?
In the beginning of the game, it is near-impossible for anything that you can't defeat to ever reach you.

And, honestly, hunting small pirate fleets, or even getting smoked and receiving a new ship over and over, sounds more interesting than grinding for money to get started.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SpacePirate on June 19, 2012, 10:16:02 AM
Thats debatable.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: siefer on June 19, 2012, 10:41:56 AM
That's a matter of personal taste and personal perception. Everyone plays a game differently and some will play game way different then you would think. I wouldn't mind doing some mining first and then doing battle.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 19, 2012, 10:43:09 AM
That's a matter of personal taste and personal perception. Everyone plays a game differently and some will play game way different then you would think. I wouldn't mind doing some mining first and then doing battle.

Or both, with outposts.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SpacePirate on June 19, 2012, 10:44:30 AM
That's a matter of personal taste and personal perception. Everyone plays a game differently and some will play game way different then you would think. I wouldn't mind doing some mining first and then doing battle.

Correct.
I play a lot of X Series and SPAZ  and I loved the introduction done by SPAZ. Start off slowly before you get thrown into the first crowd of angry ships..
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 19, 2012, 12:27:27 PM
Pretty much any ship you start with (at least initially) should be able to deal with single pirate lashers and hounds. Most will deal with two or three at once once you really get the hang of the controls and the flow of combat.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 19, 2012, 01:07:11 PM
Pretty much any ship you start with (at least initially) should be able to deal with single pirate lashers and hounds. Most will deal with two or three at once once you really get the hang of the controls and the flow of combat.
Modding the ship can help maintain it's future usability and general combat use.
For instance I very highly recommend using the Strike Variant for the Wolf.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 19, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
Personally, I prefer the CS version of the wolf, one grav and 3 tac of lasery death. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Starlight on June 21, 2012, 05:17:34 AM
Unless you start with a Dram Tanker, in which case you facepalm, delete the character and restart, since comoddity trading isn't in the game yet and a Hound will kick your ass.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 21, 2012, 06:10:53 AM
Unless you start with a Dram Tanker, in which case you facepalm, delete the character and restart, since comoddity trading isn't in the game yet and a Hound will kick your ass.

Except you can't start with a Dram unless you've lost all your ships.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on June 21, 2012, 08:07:09 AM
Unless you start with a Dram Tanker, in which case you facepalm, delete the character and restart, since comoddity trading isn't in the game yet and a Hound will kick your ass.

Unless you were to go to a station, and sell all that fuel......
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 21, 2012, 10:10:01 AM
Starting with a Dram is actually really nice, especially if you have some money stored up. You can jump straight to a destroyer half the time after selling all the fuel.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 21, 2012, 10:13:28 AM
Starting with a Dram is actually really nice, especially if you have some money stored up. You can jump straight to a destroyer half the time after selling all the fuel.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 21, 2012, 10:15:16 AM
Arg, don't start up that conversion again on quotes... ;D
And yea, 350 fuel gets you about 5000 credits, which is REALLY nice!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 21, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
Arg, don't start up that conversion again on quotes... ;D
And yea, 350 fuel gets you about 5000 credits, which is REALLY nice!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 21, 2012, 11:13:39 AM
Unless you start with a Dram Tanker, in which case you facepalm, delete the character and restart, since comoddity trading isn't in the game yet and a Hound will kick your ass.

A dram is basically "Yeah, here's a useless ship and 10000 credits instead of a useful ship and 5000, so go buy whatever the *** you want".
And it's also not included in the player starting ship pool, only in the respawn ships.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 21, 2012, 11:22:39 AM
@Upgrade
*grits teeth*
"grrrr..."
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 23, 2012, 07:58:08 AM
Well, Alex should be back tomorrow if he's right on one week, I await new patch notes. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 23, 2012, 07:59:31 AM
Well, Alex should be back tomorrow if he's right on one week, I await new patch notes. ;D

Yes... Yes....

If everything goes correct, that is...

MWHAHAHAHAHA :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on June 23, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
Really looking forward to ship systems and I hope they're as moddable as they seem.  Sure wish these patches came sooner--can you imagine if Alex won $100M and put it all into development.  Awww yeahh.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on June 23, 2012, 05:02:23 PM
Really looking forward to ship systems and I hope they're as moddable as they seem.  Sure wish these patches came sooner--can you imagine if Alex won $100M and put it all into development.  Awww yeahh.

I think it's more about actual dev-time more then a money ""issue"". After all if he gets money he gets maybe more coders and stuff (like Notch did) but in the end SF wouldn't be his game anymore.

In the end:
Spoiler
soon
[close]
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 23, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Damn the soon[tm]
I'm really starting to hate that. ;D
But anyway, it's almost always time that gets in the way of development.  No one would start making a game if they knew they didn't have enough funds.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on June 23, 2012, 08:03:58 PM
if he gets money he gets maybe more coders and stuff

That's all I meant.  You can still make something yours without doing all the work; I'm working on a digital short film and it's still my film, despite working with almost 20 other people.  These things take a ton of man hours to finish and there's only so much one person can do.  If you're one person, it can take years or even decades in the case of Cortex Command.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on June 23, 2012, 10:38:04 PM
That's all I meant.  You can still make something yours without doing all the work; I'm working on a digital short film and it's still my film, despite working with almost 20 other people.
That's a debatable point, though. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would think the opposite given the same situation.

Also, there's a major difference between a short film, and a video game.

I, personally, wouldn't feel like something was mine if I did only part of the work: It would be more of 'ours' or 'most of mine', but definitely not 'mine' mine.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on June 23, 2012, 11:21:42 PM
I guess it depends on the work you're doing, how emotionally attached you are to the project, and how much you influence it creatively.  I can relate to wanting to do something all by oneself, but I personally find that it's much better to work in teams for large projects, not just to split up the work and specialize, but also for their creative input and camaraderie.

There's also the point I was getting at regarding how much of your life do you want to devote towards one project.  If it takes five years to complete by yourself, it could potentially take one year with five people--still a tight knit team.  It's a personal choice, but I suspect that most devs would go the team route if money weren't an issue.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on June 24, 2012, 03:59:07 AM
don't think money is the problem... Mana is

                                                          !!NEED MORE MANA!!

..::mana transfer~~~~~~~~X

PS:  ::)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BombasticBattleship on June 24, 2012, 05:31:09 PM
don't think money is the problem... Mana is

                                                          !!NEED MORE MANA!!

..::mana transfer~~~~~~~~X

PS:  ::)

I would go with additional pylons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gaizokubanou on June 24, 2012, 10:06:22 PM
You must construct additional pylons.

Talking about resource buildings, I remember first time I played Starcraft as Zerg, I massed Overlord because it could fly and took no food supply.  I was sad to find out that they had no attack.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 25, 2012, 12:48:49 PM
Alex! I demand more patch notes! ;D






Nah, take your time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on June 25, 2012, 09:44:17 PM
don't think money is the problem... Mana is

                                                          !!NEED MORE MANA!!

..::mana transfer~~~~~~~~X

PS:  ::)

I would go with additional pylons.

i remember needing more minerals in red alert.. the original.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on June 25, 2012, 11:05:57 PM

I remember needing more Spice in Dune 2 the original.

Fixed that up for you.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 26, 2012, 05:34:18 AM
Ah, Dune 2. You can still play that game by-the-way.

It's so refreshing to play it after so very long, I remember it being a hard game but now, with the ability to use the right mouse button and the multi select it has become so easy its ridiculous.
You can literally finish all three houses in an afternoon.

Also, it has multi-player. And you can easily make your own maps, its as easy as modding Starfarer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYU_JitBRww
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/dunelegacy/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dunelegacy/
http://haikuware.com/directory/view-details/games/strategy/dune-legacy

PS: The sounds are so awesome to hear, even today!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on June 26, 2012, 08:22:01 AM
don't think money is the problem... Mana is

                                                          !!NEED MORE MANA!!

..::mana transfer~~~~~~~~X

PS:  ::)

I would go with additional pylons.

i remember needing more minerals in red alert.. the original.

Sigh lows, needed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Catra on June 26, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
do the sensor drones bonus apply to the one ship or to the entire side?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 26, 2012, 12:26:36 PM
do the sensor drones bonus apply to the one ship or to the entire side?
Probably just the one ship.  What would happen if you have many apogees? ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 26, 2012, 12:31:27 PM
do the sensor drones bonus apply to the one ship or to the entire side?
Probably just the one ship.  What would happen if you have many apogees? ;D

Apogeeception?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on June 26, 2012, 01:07:28 PM
Sounds like a good mod! :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 26, 2012, 01:56:39 PM
do the sensor drones bonus apply to the one ship or to the entire side?

Just the ship.


Also: I'm back from vacation and working away on things once again :) Nothing patch-notes-worthy yet, though - just trying a couple of things out.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 26, 2012, 02:11:26 PM
do the sensor drones bonus apply to the one ship or to the entire side?

Just the ship.


Also: I'm back from vacation and working away on things once again :) Nothing patch-notes-worthy yet, though - just trying a couple of things out.

YAY progress shall be made :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 26, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
PROGRESS.
Nothing is sweeter. ;D
Anyways, everything is patch-note worth in my world. ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on June 26, 2012, 06:17:20 PM
if pro is the opposite of con does that mean congress is the opposite of progress?  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on June 26, 2012, 08:57:44 PM
things

Yesssss!


if pro is the opposite of con does that mean congress is the opposite of progress?  ;D

Recent observation seems to indicate that.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: hydremajor on June 26, 2012, 11:16:23 PM
To be honest I'm not quite sure I'm liking the idea that only the Omen has the EMP blast thingy for two reasons

1: They are a pain to get

2: Unless its EMP attack is strong enough to knock out a destroyer/cruiser or spammable like no tomorrow, they'll still have a ridiculously low potential compared to any other ship in the game...

Side note: the ability to exchange ship systems would be much appreciated such as:

Hound can upgrade to active flares BUT it would have somesort of drawback, more flux, actual OP used for upgrade or slower recharge....That kinda thing...

However it would be daft to have all ships capable of having all systems (Burn Drive on an Odysee would be stupid) wich is why I propose to limit certain systems to certain Tech levels to prevent ridiculous things from happening...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: xanderh on June 27, 2012, 02:09:16 AM
To be honest I'm not quite sure I'm liking the idea that only the Omen has the EMP blast thingy for two reasons

1: They are a pain to get

2: Unless its EMP attack is strong enough to knock out a destroyer/cruiser or spammable like no tomorrow, they'll still have a ridiculously low potential compared to any other ship in the game...

Side note: the ability to exchange ship systems would be much appreciated such as:

Hound can upgrade to active flares BUT it would have somesort of drawback, more flux, actual OP used for upgrade or slower recharge....That kinda thing...

However it would be daft to have all ships capable of having all systems (Burn Drive on an Odysee would be stupid) wich is why I propose to limit certain systems to certain Tech levels to prevent ridiculous things from happening...

The fact that the Omen is the only ship with the EMP is probably to make it a lot better as a point defense frigate.

And I assume that the ship systems will be balanced around specific hulls, which means it would introduce all kinds of problems if you made it possible to switch between them.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on June 27, 2012, 05:30:09 AM
Burn Drives on a freighter. Battle Barges ftw~!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 27, 2012, 05:42:28 AM
When will we see multiple starsystems in play? Will it be this upcoming version, or a few ahead?

Is that some information you can disclose, alex, instead of the ordinary soon(TM) :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on June 27, 2012, 06:25:30 AM
When will we see multiple starsystems in play? Will it be this upcoming version, or a few ahead?

Is that some information you can disclose, alex, instead of the ordinary soon(TM) :D

I'm guessing the next update will be focused on ship systems since that'll impact combat in such a huge way.

But yeah multiple star systems is high up on my wish list as well as additional music.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 27, 2012, 07:56:39 AM
I'm raring for officer skills - between the three of us we demand most of the game next update! :P I'm very excited for ship systems though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on June 27, 2012, 08:06:15 AM
I'm terrified of the introduction of ship systems. I think I'm going to have to learn to play the game all over again.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on June 27, 2012, 09:00:19 AM

I remember needing more Spice in Dune 2 the original.

Fixed that up for you.

cough
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Ant
/cough
i remember fighting for green food pellets LOL.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on June 27, 2012, 09:50:52 AM
Oh I loved Sim Ant... what a great, vicious game...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on June 27, 2012, 11:28:57 AM
I highly doubt it's going to change the game. It's just going to add another layer, and make me actually consider using a Dominator or Onslaught again.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on June 27, 2012, 11:32:31 AM
(sorry, Temjin; that's the 2nd post I've lost today while editing - can Ctrl-V save me? And...)

I'm terrified of the introduction of ship systems. I think I'm going to have to learn to play the game all over again.

The common phrase "that's a real game-changer" gets thrown around a lot in contexts where it's either not true or simply doesn't belong. Here, though with ship systems it is quite true indeed. I'm eager to see these but, like you, I am also just a wee bit nervous. ;)

Oh and unlike some folks, I am greatly looking forward to the EMP-enabled Omen point-defense frigate! ;D Can you imagine the chip on its shoulder now? "PH3@R M3!" I admire the underdog.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on June 27, 2012, 11:41:59 AM
Hounds with flares. Could those things get more annoying in the early game? Apparently they can.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 27, 2012, 12:59:52 PM
Hounds with flares. Could those things get more annoying in the early game? Apparently they can.
ECCM package will ruin hounds now. Harpoons might hit
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 27, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
Hounds with flares. Could those things get more annoying in the early game? Apparently they can.
ECCM package will ruin hounds now. Harpoons might hit

They still have that dual mg though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 27, 2012, 01:02:41 PM
Hounds with flares. Could those things get more annoying in the early game? Apparently they can.
ECCM package will ruin hounds now. Harpoons might hit

They still have that dual mg though.
Which won't hurt nearly as much as a better tracking harpoon
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 27, 2012, 01:45:08 PM
Hounds with flares. Could those things get more annoying in the early game? Apparently they can.
ECCM package will ruin hounds now. Harpoons might hit

They still have that dual mg though.
Which won't hurt nearly as much as a better tracking harpoon

I think the ECCM gives better speed and turning, but im not sure.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 27, 2012, 01:46:58 PM
Didn't the ECCM package just give missiles better anti-flare detection systems?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on June 27, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Didn't the ECCM package just give missiles better anti-flare detection systems?
Better tracking too
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on June 27, 2012, 05:23:08 PM
Didn't the ECCM package just give missiles better anti-flare detection systems?
Better tracking too

It says: improves tracking and engines. Im guessing engines means speed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on June 27, 2012, 11:17:55 PM
Didn't the ECCM package just give missiles better anti-flare detection systems?
Better tracking too

It says: improves tracking and engines. Im guessing engines means speed.

And those Pilums got more armour too...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KDR_11k on June 28, 2012, 08:25:27 AM
Burn Drives on a freighter. Battle Barges ftw~!

Since the normal role of a freighter in combat is "GTFO ASAP" wouldn't that be far too useful for preventing interception?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on June 28, 2012, 08:32:41 AM
Burn Drives on a freighter. Battle Barges ftw~!

Since the normal role of a freighter in combat is "GTFO ASAP" wouldn't that be far too useful for preventing interception?
Hell naw!
Overdrive one of these suckers right in there and 'ave at it.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15428102/Starfarer%20sprites/Hades.png)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on June 28, 2012, 10:36:48 AM
 :
Burn Drives on a freighter. Battle Barges ftw~!

Since the normal role of a freighter in combat is "GTFO ASAP" wouldn't that be far too useful for preventing interception?
Hell naw!
Overdrive one of these suckers right in there and 'ave at it.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15428102/Starfarer%20sprites/Hades.png)
:o
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on June 28, 2012, 01:03:51 PM
:
Burn Drives on a freighter. Battle Barges ftw~!

Since the normal role of a freighter in combat is "GTFO ASAP" wouldn't that be far too useful for preventing interception?
Hell naw!
Overdrive one of these suckers right in there and 'ave at it.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15428102/Starfarer%20sprites/Hades.png)
:o

Hahahaha! God bless the Trade Scavengers mod: "re-purposed" Atlas hulls FTW.  8)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on June 28, 2012, 06:26:57 PM
yeah... I probably should update that properly sometime, probably when the update's released, to make use of the new fancies
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 29, 2012, 01:28:08 PM
Still nothing patchnote-worthy?  There must be a ton of tiny fixes. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 29, 2012, 05:06:40 PM
Aww, !@#$.  There's that one time for every game where the forums die down and the game slips out of your mind.  I know people aren't glued to the computer screen 24/7, they have a worldy life to live, but I'm just wondering why this happens.  Maybe it's because of a lack of content (no offense) or a large project that was hyping everyone up just sorta dying out (Project Caelus, maybe), but I've been through enough forums to know this happens sometimes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on June 29, 2012, 05:23:52 PM
You just have to practice patience.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on June 29, 2012, 05:28:58 PM
I've played through the game too many times with the current content, and mods don't interest me. I'm just going to wait until there is a reason for me to come back and play more. Starfarer is a great game, but it isn't finished yet, and it needs more content for me to start playing again.

You just have to practice patience.
What he said. The more you check for updates, the longer it is going to seem before there is one.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 29, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Blah. ;D
Anyway, I'll wait.  Just getting a bit itchy with a few bugs on my mod, I need a distraction.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 29, 2012, 05:46:50 PM
Still nothing patchnote-worthy?  There must be a ton of tiny fixes. ;D

You know, there really haven't. Trying to work out how something <top secret> works - just involves a bunch of playing around with different options, or simply thinking things through.

Aww, !@#$.  There's that one time for every game where the forums die down and the game slips out of your mind.  I know people aren't glued to the computer screen 24/7, they have a worldy life to live, but I'm just wondering why this happens.  Maybe it's because of a lack of content (no offense) or a large project that was hyping everyone up just sorta dying out (Project Caelus, maybe), but I've been through enough forums to know this happens sometimes.

Yeah, it's interesting. I know I've been a fair bit less active on the forum lately (away on vacation for a week, and more focused on dev for a while before that)... but I don't know that I'm conceited enough to say that's the reason :) Perhaps the reason it feels like things are slower to me precisely because I haven't been on the forum as much.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: armoredcookie on June 29, 2012, 05:53:27 PM
Heh, it seems like theres still a good amount of posts on the forum. Maybe there's just more time to look at them all now?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on June 29, 2012, 06:17:01 PM
Yeah, it's interesting. I know I've been a fair bit less active on the forum lately (away on vacation for a week, and more focused on dev for a while before that)... but I don't know that I'm conceited enough to say that's the reason :) Perhaps the reason it feels like things are slower to me precisely because I haven't been on the forum as much.

Funnily enough though, this forum is the one that I've found that the developer interacts with the community the most. Not only on the level of bug reports and patchnotes but even helping those with modding questions. I don't think many other places could say the same (I've certainly not seen any).

I've played through the game too many times with the current content, and mods don't interest me. I'm just going to wait until there is a reason for me to come back and play more. Starfarer is a great game, but it isn't finished yet, and it needs more content for me to start playing again.

I'm kinda in the same boat here, I haven't played the newest version at all, mostly because of lack of motivation on things. I sincerely hope that turns around with 0.53a. Given recent news though... I just don't know any more.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on June 29, 2012, 06:40:38 PM
I'm kinda in the same boat here, I haven't played the newest version at all, mostly because of lack of motivation on things. I sincerely hope that turns around with 0.53a. Given recent news though... I just don't know any more.

Fair enough - hopefully, you'll be back when something more exciting to you personally is released :) Thinking about it, the dev cycle is pretty long - how often does a *finished* game keep one's uninterrupted attention for that long? I personally can't think of one that did that for me - it's usually on and off.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on June 29, 2012, 07:06:00 PM
I'm kinda in the same boat here, I haven't played the newest version at all, mostly because of lack of motivation on things. I sincerely hope that turns around with 0.53a. Given recent news though... I just don't know any more.

Fair enough - hopefully, you'll be back when something more exciting to you personally is released :) Thinking about it, the dev cycle is pretty long - how often does a *finished* game keep one's uninterrupted attention for that long? I personally can't think of one that did that for me - it's usually on and off.

i dabbled in the latest release a little but its largely the same as the previous releases. im personally waiting until a larger mechanic comes out.. like multi systems./character development/economy before i sink a lot more time into it. so i dont burn out on the game. also i droped off the forums largely once i saw the same questions start to recycle again.. it was a sign of new blood on the forums and i didn't want to go threw the same cycle i had just gone threw on the forums again. so while i check this thread every day. i tend to not pay attention to the rest of it... much... anymore.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 29, 2012, 07:20:11 PM
Well put, and fair enough.  I see what you mean.  But don't worry, the economy mod by lazywizard is something to look forward to. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on June 30, 2012, 04:21:06 AM
You just have to practice patience.

Yeah, the more patience you have, the greater the reward.

Also, what makes you think Caelus is dead? We're working on higher level features now, such as an economy and stuff. Also, we're working on all sorts of stuff inside the dev team, dunno how you missed that.

Need to set that IRC channel up ;D

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on June 30, 2012, 06:33:10 AM
Just nothing much has been happening on my end is all.  Boredom is killer, I tell you.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on June 30, 2012, 07:08:46 AM
I must admit I played a lot of the latest build while I was supposed to be on holiday. The main problem at the moment is the lack of content when you've managed to max a fleet out which I'm fine with because I'll just start over and focus on other ships. Obviously a lot of other mechanics simply don't exist yet. I see ship systems as the last big change to combat and then maybe we'll get a hint of whats next?

maybe a vote?  :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: SQW on June 30, 2012, 07:53:34 AM
Same here. I got the game when it introduced the free-roam element and was really excited by the prospect of sci-fi sandbox a la Privateer.

However, it's been several month and it's still essentially the same thing; there's only so much combat can sustain any level of excitement. I haven't even played the last patch and most likely wouldn't touch the game again until some significant new gameplay elements have been introduced.

Starfarer is a great game and has great potential but I guess I, along with many in the forum, underestimated the development cycle. I blame society for my lack of patience. :P

Keep up the great work Alex and hope to be mesmerised by your game again in a few months time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on June 30, 2012, 09:31:14 AM
Oh I fully understand that it may be a very long time before we see a finished game. This is the most interesting part for me, seeing the game develop over the years.

I'm extremely thankful for any scifi sandbox experience, it's been quite a while since Freelancer and the X series has never satisfied the same urges for me.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Fisk on June 30, 2012, 01:25:21 PM
I'm hoping there will be some grand goal you can reach like conquering the entire galaxy and that it'll take a very long time. Just to have something to work for when playing this game once in a while, other then whatever quest and similar will be available.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: j01 on June 30, 2012, 02:19:30 PM
I would just like to say that I cannot begin to imagine what these people are talking about who think that Starfarer's development is going anything resembling slowly. I can only guess that these people have absolutely zero experience with indie game development whatsoever, even just watching and waiting on any previous titles in development, and are letting their excitement for this title severely cloud their reasoning.

Starfarer's development has so far consistently been what I would call blisteringly fast, and I have kept tabs on (and even participated in a few small examples of) many, many developing indie games, of all genres and sizes, over a course of about the last decade and a half.

My website bookmarks list alone contains, let's see... seventeen different websites, mostly individual titles, almost all of them unfinished, ongoing projects, and 3 addresses which are aggregate sites dedicated to tracking various developing indie games. I check and recheck many of these daily, all of them weekly, and have done so with many more over the years than my bookmark list covers even the merest fraction of.

And I have to say, Starfarer, which I also check just about daily, has been standing out as a very frequently updated game, a notably updated website, and an extraordinarily active dev presence in the game's community.

The rate of progress and dev communication is simply, undeniably exceptional, especially when compared to the format and frequency of other titles' updates.

Hell, I'd even just point to the likes of Cortex Command or various long stages of Minecraft's development as the other end of the spectrum.

I guess it's in the nature of the enthusiastic fan to keep demanding more, and that's fine and dandy, but a wise fan should know the difference between the absurd, machine-like efficiency and speed of Starfarer's dev team, and the likes of the rest of the indie chaff out there, where entire teams of people don't say a word and can't work a dozen lines of code together or even update their website to tell anyone what's going on for years at a time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Pelhamds on June 30, 2012, 04:33:34 PM
I would just like to say that I cannot begin to imagine what these people are talking about who think that Starfarer's development is going anything resembling slowly. I can only guess that these people have absolutely zero experience with indie game development whatsoever, even just watching and waiting on any previous titles in development, and are letting their excitement for this title severely cloud their reasoning.

Starfarer's development has so far consistently been what I would call blisteringly fast, and I have kept tabs on (and even participated in a few small examples of) many, many developing indie games, of all genres and sizes, over a course of about the last decade and a half.

My website bookmarks list alone contains, let's see... seventeen different websites, mostly individual titles, almost all of them unfinished, ongoing projects, and 3 addresses which are aggregate sites dedicated to tracking various developing indie games. I check and recheck many of these daily, all of them weekly, and have done so with many more over the years than my bookmark list covers even the merest fraction of.

And I have to say, Starfarer, which I also check just about daily, has been standing out as a very frequently updated game, a notably updated website, and an extraordinarily active dev presence in the game's community.

The rate of progress and dev communication is simply, undeniably exceptional, especially when compared to the format and frequency of other titles' updates.

Hell, I'd even just point to the likes of Cortex Command or various long stages of Minecraft's development as the other end of the spectrum.

I guess it's in the nature of the enthusiastic fan to keep demanding more, and that's fine and dandy, but a wise fan should know the difference between the absurd, machine-like efficiency and speed of Starfarer's dev team, and the likes of the rest of the indie chaff out there, where entire teams of people don't say a word and can't work a dozen lines of code together or even update their website to tell anyone what's going on for years at a time.

You are exactly right, this is a really fast development, and with big updates too! It is really a shame people are too impatient, I too have loads of games I'm waiting for, e.g. Firefall, Towns...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: xanderh on June 30, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
I'm guessing the development will slow down relatively soon, probably at most a year from now, when the dev team is starting to finish the game, and are probably also getting a little burnt out from the incredibly fast development cycles at the moment. I'm hoping that Alex and his team takes their time, and doesn't listen to people saying "I want more updates, faster and NOW!", as it would hurt the game.

But, from what I've seen so far, the team knows each other well enough to keep a really good pace, without getting too burnt out. At least, that's my impression.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sunfire on June 30, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
I would just like to say that I cannot begin to imagine what these people are talking about who think that Starfarer's development is going anything resembling slowly. I can only guess that these people have absolutely zero experience with indie game development whatsoever, even just watching and waiting on any previous titles in development, and are letting their excitement for this title severely cloud their reasoning.

Starfarer's development has so far consistently been what I would call blisteringly fast, and I have kept tabs on (and even participated in a few small examples of) many, many developing indie games, of all genres and sizes, over a course of about the last decade and a half.

My website bookmarks list alone contains, let's see... seventeen different websites, mostly individual titles, almost all of them unfinished, ongoing projects, and 3 addresses which are aggregate sites dedicated to tracking various developing indie games. I check and recheck many of these daily, all of them weekly, and have done so with many more over the years than my bookmark list covers even the merest fraction of.

And I have to say, Starfarer, which I also check just about daily, has been standing out as a very frequently updated game, a notably updated website, and an extraordinarily active dev presence in the game's community.

The rate of progress and dev communication is simply, undeniably exceptional, especially when compared to the format and frequency of other titles' updates.

Hell, I'd even just point to the likes of Cortex Command or various long stages of Minecraft's development as the other end of the spectrum.

I guess it's in the nature of the enthusiastic fan to keep demanding more, and that's fine and dandy, but a wise fan should know the difference between the absurd, machine-like efficiency and speed of Starfarer's dev team, and the likes of the rest of the indie chaff out there, where entire teams of people don't say a word and can't work a dozen lines of code together or even update their website to tell anyone what's going on for years at a time.

You are exactly right, this is a really fast development, and with big updates too! It is really a shame people are too impatient, I too have loads of games I'm waiting for, e.g. Firefall, Towns...

i thought towns had an update
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 01, 2012, 06:00:15 AM
I feel like I started this...
I probably did. :(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 01, 2012, 06:48:32 AM
The speed of development is bound to be brought up again and again as people aren't familiar with indie development.  Afaik, Alex is the only dev.  Considering this, Starfarer is doing very well--there are regular releases and every one is very stable and complete feeling.  That's commendable.

Know that given the scope of Starfarer, it will take years to build the game to what most imagine it will become.  Some titles, such as Cortex Command, are ten years in the making...thank god Alex is more communicative than Data (CC's dev).  My advice is to pick up a few more games to follow or get a hobby--you will burn out long before Starfarer becomes what you want it to be if you're expecting miracles every release.  Welcome to indie game development, one developer style.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sunfire on July 01, 2012, 07:43:42 AM
The speed of development is bound to be brought up again and again as people aren't familiar with indie development.  Afaik, Alex is the only dev.  Considering this, Starfarer is doing very well--there are regular releases and every one is very stable and complete feeling.  That's commendable.

Know that given the scope of Starfarer, it will take years to build the game to what most imagine it will become.  Some titles, such as Cortex Command, are ten years in the making...thank god Alex is more communicative than Data (CC's dev).  My advice is to pick up a few more games to follow or get a hobby--you will burn out long before Starfarer becomes what you want it to be if you're expecting miracles every release.  Welcome to indie game development, one developer style.

I thought there was a five men team?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 01, 2012, 07:48:20 AM
So did i. ???
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 01, 2012, 08:28:17 AM
It is a team, but Alex is the only coder. (I think)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 01, 2012, 08:44:09 AM
Read the starfarer credits ingame. Ivaylo codes aswell. :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 01, 2012, 08:52:22 AM
ah.

Well SHAME on you keptin for not knowing that!  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 01, 2012, 09:01:35 AM
Thanks for the support, guys! Ultimately, all I can do is work at the best pace I can, but I'm glad to know that it's not universally considered slow :)

The speed of development is bound to be brought up again and again as people aren't familiar with indie development.  Afaik, Alex is the only dev.  Considering this, Starfarer is doing very well--there are regular releases and every one is very stable and complete feeling.  That's commendable.

Know that given the scope of Starfarer, it will take years to build the game to what most imagine it will become.  Some titles, such as Cortex Command, are ten years in the making...thank god Alex is more communicative than Data (CC's dev).  My advice is to pick up a few more games to follow or get a hobby--you will burn out long before Starfarer becomes what you want it to be if you're expecting miracles every release.  Welcome to indie game development, one developer style.

I thought there was a five men team?

Just to clear this up - I'm the only one working on it full-time, so I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes in. Matthew also isn't working on it anymore, but, of course, is still in the credits - at this point, four people are working on the game in various capacities. So, I'm definitely not the only dev - but at the same time, saying "five four man team" - while absolutely true - probably creates some unrealistic expectations, given the actual circumstances.

Btw: I've been without power for about two days now, and still don't have it back (posting this from relatives' house). Temperature's been in the 90s, too, so this is oh so very much fun.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 01, 2012, 09:16:36 AM
where are you located Alex? if you don't mind my asking.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 01, 2012, 09:22:34 AM
In Rockville, Maryland. It's pretty close to Washington DC, a bit north of it.

Had a crazy storm here two days ago... non-stop lightning, literally non-stop to the point where you could see by it. And some major winds  - hence, the power outages - falling trees + power lines. Wish they'd just run the lines underground, but apparently that's too expensive. Not sure when we'll get power back, either - could be a while.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 01, 2012, 09:28:58 AM
For some odd reason I think most indie games are European-based operations, but I've been pleasantly surprised. ;D Finally, some good game content from somewhere I know.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 01, 2012, 09:37:27 AM
In Rockville, Maryland. It's pretty close to Washington DC, a bit north of it.

Had a crazy storm here two days ago... non-stop lightning, literally non-stop to the point where you could see by it. And some major winds  - hence, the power outages - falling trees + power lines. Wish they'd just run the lines underground, but apparently that's too expensive. Not sure when we'll get power back, either - could be a while.

Yeah, read on the news here that there are some crazy storms up there in the US. Believe it was 6 dead because of the, though.


Just don't worry about them ::)


For some odd reason I think most indie games are European-based operations, but I've been pleasantly surprised. ;D Finally, some good game content from somewhere I know.

Indeed, i strangely enough, had the same thought. Am surprised actually (Considering that a major BS company has their HQ there... You all know which one i'm talking about ::)). :O :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 01, 2012, 01:29:36 PM
Had a crazy storm here two days ago... non-stop lightning, literally non-stop to the point where you could see by it. And some major winds  - hence, the power outages - falling trees + power lines.
Bummer.
Got my brother living with me us and my sister is using my fridge space since they both don't have power. We are actually about to start round 2 of the storms right now (Fort Wayne, Indiana).  We're a little more prepared this time though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 01, 2012, 01:44:57 PM
... We are actually about to start round 2 of the storms right now (Fort Wayne, Indiana).  We're a little more prepared this time though.

Yikes - good luck.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zaldron on July 01, 2012, 06:37:09 PM
Send us some rain here in Arkansas!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 01, 2012, 10:18:04 PM
we just had a pretty nasty thunderstorm here in south Carolina

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/jul/01/9/least-thousand-customers-without-power-greenville-ar-4069722/

Quote
Today’s high of 107 at GSP breaks old record of 99 (1970) for the day, and is also the ALL TIME HOTTEST TEMP EVER recorded for GSP…  The old all time hottest was 106 recorded in 1887."

i just happen to work at that airport
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MasterGlink on July 01, 2012, 11:32:13 PM
At least we don't get almost any hail over here in Puerto Rico... We do get fairly frequent storms, since we're in the tropics though. Just last week there was some rainfall in parts of the island that left 75% of the population without power for a few hours.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on July 02, 2012, 05:33:52 AM
*lives in London, England and only gets temperamental rain that lasts a couple minutes*

We don't get any awesome weather over here  :(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on July 02, 2012, 06:08:19 AM
*lives in London, England and only gets temperamental rain that lasts a couple minutes*

We don't get any awesome weather over here  :(

I'm sure right about now those poor folks in the US would take a bit of average weather!   :)

Hope those of you over the Atlantic are getting on okay with it all and the worst thing you have to worry about is a bit of a power outage. Looks pretty dreadful in some parts  :(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 02, 2012, 08:19:25 AM
I'm sure right about now those poor folks in the US would take a bit of average weather!   :)

Hope those of you over the Atlantic are getting on okay with it all and the worst thing you have to worry about is a bit of a power outage. Looks pretty dreadful in some parts  :(

Yeah, lots of fallen trees around here, many crushed cars and worse.

Finally got the power back last night, btw. Some more storms coming up soon, though - allegedly nothing nearly as bad, but... yeah.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 02, 2012, 08:27:47 AM
I do believe this has become appropriate. Gypsy Pie will help you guys throe any bad situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCMQ5mDIdHQ&feature=related
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KDR_11k on July 02, 2012, 08:38:30 AM
I would just like to say that I cannot begin to imagine what these people are talking about who think that Starfarer's development is going anything resembling slowly. I can only guess that these people have absolutely zero experience with indie game development whatsoever, even just watching and waiting on any previous titles in development, and are letting their excitement for this title severely cloud their reasoning.

Starfarer's development has so far consistently been what I would call blisteringly fast, and I have kept tabs on (and even participated in a few small examples of) many, many developing indie games, of all genres and sizes, over a course of about the last decade and a half.

My website bookmarks list alone contains, let's see... seventeen different websites, mostly individual titles, almost all of them unfinished, ongoing projects, and 3 addresses which are aggregate sites dedicated to tracking various developing indie games. I check and recheck many of these daily, all of them weekly, and have done so with many more over the years than my bookmark list covers even the merest fraction of.

And I have to say, Starfarer, which I also check just about daily, has been standing out as a very frequently updated game, a notably updated website, and an extraordinarily active dev presence in the game's community.

The rate of progress and dev communication is simply, undeniably exceptional, especially when compared to the format and frequency of other titles' updates.

Hell, I'd even just point to the likes of Cortex Command or various long stages of Minecraft's development as the other end of the spectrum.

I guess it's in the nature of the enthusiastic fan to keep demanding more, and that's fine and dandy, but a wise fan should know the difference between the absurd, machine-like efficiency and speed of Starfarer's dev team, and the likes of the rest of the indie chaff out there, where entire teams of people don't say a word and can't work a dozen lines of code together or even update their website to tell anyone what's going on for years at a time.

I've been following Arcen Games too much, that creates unrealistic expectations. "So we released 1.1 last week, now we ripped out the whole progression system along with crafting and citybuilding and replaced them with completely new implementations."
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on July 02, 2012, 09:30:56 AM
The speed of Arcen Games is awesome. Bought AVWW after watching TB's WTF is, new beta updates almost every day, perhaps even twice a day. It's scary. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E2Cp9AXpOA)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 02, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
I've been following Arcen Games too much, that creates unrealistic expectations. "So we released 1.1 last week, now we ripped out the whole progression system along with crafting and citybuilding and replaced them with completely new implementations."
They patch appallingly fast.  D:  It was off-putting for a while, haha.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: VikingHaag on July 02, 2012, 02:10:11 PM
Thanks for the support, guys! Ultimately, all I can do is work at the best pace I can, but I'm glad to know that it's not universally considered slow :)

The speed of development is bound to be brought up again and again as people aren't familiar with indie development.  Afaik, Alex is the only dev.  Considering this, Starfarer is doing very well--there are regular releases and every one is very stable and complete feeling.  That's commendable.

Know that given the scope of Starfarer, it will take years to build the game to what most imagine it will become.  Some titles, such as Cortex Command, are ten years in the making...thank god Alex is more communicative than Data (CC's dev).  My advice is to pick up a few more games to follow or get a hobby--you will burn out long before Starfarer becomes what you want it to be if you're expecting miracles every release.  Welcome to indie game development, one developer style.

I thought there was a five men team?

Just to clear this up - I'm the only one working on it full-time, so I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes in. Matthew also isn't working on it anymore, but, of course, is still in the credits - at this point, four people are working on the game in various capacities. So, I'm definitely not the only dev - but at the same time, saying "five four man team" - while absolutely true - probably creates some unrealistic expectations, given the actual circumstances.

Btw: I've been without power for about two days now, and still don't have it back (posting this from relatives' house). Temperature's been in the 90s, too, so this is oh so very much fun.

Alex, pardon my possibly idiotic/assholish/younameit suggestion, but why don't you ask modders to help you develop the game?
Pretty sure many of them would lend a hand occasionally. If i knew how to code i'd volunteer tbh.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 02, 2012, 02:24:54 PM
Alex, pardon my possibly idiotic/assholish/younameit suggestion, but why don't you ask modders to help you develop the game?
Pretty sure many of them would lend a hand occasionally. If i knew how to code i'd volunteer tbh.

No worries - this comes up now and again. Basically, coding/dev just doesn't work like that. The best analogy I've heard is "two women can't have a baby in 4.5 months". Corny as that sounds, it really is like that. Obviously, more people can be good - especially to get some skills/capabilities that you don't have - but it can also be bad. Adding people to a project to make it go faster is almost universally a bad idea - as long as I'm on a roll here with software-dev-related sayings, here's another one: "adding people to a late project makes it later". Never mind the legal issues involved (all surmountable, but as with everything, it just takes more time).

I really do appreciate the sentiment, though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dark.Revenant on July 02, 2012, 03:24:27 PM
I don't think more coders would be able to help Alex unless they work physically side-by-side and are top-tier programmers.

However, skilled modders would be very useful for content design and balance.  Rather than spending time testing your stuff for balance extensively, you can hand it to a team of dedicated testers with access to the data values so they can iterate on the actual numbers for you.  I've found in my own experience that this is a highly efficient method of refining the game once it gets large enough and saves the developer a lot of time.

This is assuming you don't already have something like this set up, by the way.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: heskey30 on July 02, 2012, 04:54:07 PM
Looking at most of the mods out there, letting modders balance the game is not a good idea...   ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 02, 2012, 06:38:44 PM
Looking at most of the mods out there, letting modders balance the game is not a good idea...   ;)

Hahaha yup ;)

The community in general does give lots of feedback on weapon balance though. When half of people are whining about it being overpowered and the other half declaring it worthless, you know a weapon is balanced. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 02, 2012, 07:08:03 PM
Looking at most of the mods out there, letting modders balance the game is not a good idea...   ;)

Hahaha yup ;)

The community in general does give lots of feedback on weapon balance though. When half of people are whining about it being overpowered and the other half declaring it worthless, you know a weapon is balanced. :P

or so hopelessly unbalanced as to not be usable in a normal build but hopelessly OP when used incorrectly/against the spirit of the game/hacked.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 02, 2012, 08:37:55 PM
True... I was kidding although it didn't come across right  :-\. The reality of what I wrote is more the classic sign of a broken weapon...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 03, 2012, 01:30:40 AM
When people say "I can't kill stuff fast enough with this gun!" Or " Why did that capital own my custom one? O_O" you know you have balanced stuff.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: cp252 on July 03, 2012, 02:16:03 AM
People have said the former about the Storm Needler. It's still a bit OP.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 03, 2012, 12:22:51 PM
A few questions:

1)Any hints as to what systems the Phase-ships might be getting?

2)From the listed changes, it seems like Missiles are getting the short end of the stick in this patch; It seems most ships can out-run, shoot down, or shrug them off now. Between the high cooldowns, low ammo, Ordnance Point costs, and growing intercept-abilities of other ships, it seems fielding missiles is becoming a losing proposition, whose only real use seems to be herding enemies into lines of fire, distractions, and a 1-2 punch for some of the quicker ships who can sneak in Reapers and Atropos.
  Sure, missiles (will) have the ECCM Package and Extended racks option, and maybe the fast racks systems, if you wish to outfit one of the three hulls who have it, but it doesn't seem like it will be enough...anyway, here's the question:

Are you planning to do anything with missiles to make them more viable, especially for larger ships?
(Notes:I understand that missiles likely meant to be used in conjunction with Ballistic/Energy weapons/Fighters but they still feel underwhelming and costly to me)

3)How will Non-guided 'Missile' weapons be affected by things like Flare Launchers and the ECCM Package?

4)How is the AI Handling ship systems? I am particularly interested in how it handles the Burn Drive, Phase Skimmer/Teleporter, and High Energy Focus systems, and any significantly foolish mistakes it makes with regularity.

5)I don't believe this question -
These all look like a lot of fun :)

One comment though: should the Tempest really be getting Active Flares? With its high speed and omni-shield, it's already nearly invulnerable to missiles, unless fired when the Tempest ventured too close and is nearly overloaded--and now, in that case, it can just fire off its flares. I'll have to try it, but I think it might be OP and make it even easier for the Tempest to kite far larger ships.
- was ever answered, though I may have missed it in looking over this thread;

Compared to the other ships with Flare Launcher systems, it seems very out of place - it's a lean, mean fighting machine, where the others aren't, except maybe for the hound.

6)The Condor and Tarsus; With such a difference between their systems, I wonder if some humans out there still have a piece of advanced Dominion knowledge tucked away, or if I missed some detail about the refitting process involved; Did I? It seems strange that there would be those willing to improve ships like the Buffalo and the Tarsus, but not others - save maybe for the explanation of cost or abundance/scarcity.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 03, 2012, 12:51:55 PM
-snip-
3)How will Non-guided 'Missile' weapons be affected by things like Flare Launchers and the ECCM Package?
-snip-
I don't think that they would be affected by flares but i think they would get all but the tracking bonus from the ECCM package.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 03, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Welcome to the forum Strifen.

The system choice for the tempest is an excellent one in my opinion. The tempest is an incredibly fast ship but not yet fast enough to completely outrun missiles, however due to it's system it will now be able to roam the map with impunity. I think it's speed will also allow it to use it's system to protect the rest of the fleet from missiles, though not as well as the Omen will.

If you look at the overall High-Tech ships and their systems you'll see that they make for a well balanced fleet, and a ship that has an active flare launcher is part of that balance.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 03, 2012, 01:11:23 PM
Hi Strifen, welcome to the forum!

1)Any hints as to what systems the Phase-ships might be getting?

Why, phase cloaks, of course. Assuming we can get the mechanics to work well.

2)From the listed changes, it seems like Missiles are getting the short end of the stick in this patch; It seems most ships can out-run, shoot down, or shrug them off now. Between the high cooldowns, low ammo, Ordnance Point costs, and growing intercept-abilities of other ships, it seems fielding missiles is becoming a losing proposition, whose only real use seems to be herding enemies into lines of fire, distractions, and a 1-2 punch for some of the quicker ships who can sneak in Reapers and Atropos.
  Sure, missiles (will) have the ECCM Package and Extended racks option, and maybe the fast racks systems, if you wish to outfit one of the three hulls who have it, but it doesn't seem like it will be enough...anyway, here's the question:

Are you planning to do anything with missiles to make them more viable, especially for larger ships?
(Notes:I understand that missiles likely meant to be used in conjunction with Ballistic/Energy weapons/Fighters but they still feel underwhelming and costly to me)

To a degree - I don't think the impact is all that significant. Missiles are already situational, and these systems generally don't affect a ship's ability to deal with missiles when they're overloaded or venting, which are the existing windows of opportunity. It will become more clear after 0.53a is out, though.

(I don't agree with your premise that missiles are lackluster, btw - for example, a pair of Harpoon racks can tear up a cruiser, and can be easily mounted on most frigates. They're just meant to be very situational, and exceedingly good when the situation is right. There's always room for some tweaks and improvements, but I think if you're finding missiles lackluster overall, it's a question of how you're using them.)


3)How will Non-guided 'Missile' weapons be affected by things like Flare Launchers and the ECCM Package?

Unguided missiles can still impact flares and blow up. The ECCM package still boosts their stats.


4)How is the AI Handling ship systems? I am particularly interested in how it handles the Burn Drive, Phase Skimmer/Teleporter, and High Energy Focus systems, and any significantly foolish mistakes it makes with regularity.

In my testing, it seems to do pretty well - but, again, this is something where player feedback will be really important. Generally the AI is coded to be conservative - i.e., avoid doing something that might be a mistake, at the expense of potentially passing up a good opportunity. I will say that the Hyperion is one of the most survivable ships in the hands of the AI just now.

5)I don't believe this question -
These all look like a lot of fun :)

One comment though: should the Tempest really be getting Active Flares? With its high speed and omni-shield, it's already nearly invulnerable to missiles, unless fired when the Tempest ventured too close and is nearly overloaded--and now, in that case, it can just fire off its flares. I'll have to try it, but I think it might be OP and make it even easier for the Tempest to kite far larger ships.
- was ever answered, though I may have missed it in looking over this thread;

Compared to the other ships with Flare Launcher systems, it seems very out of place - it's a lean, mean fighting machine, where the others aren't, except maybe for the hound.

Active Flares is actually a weaker system, all in all - that's why the Tempest is getting it, because it's already such a strong ship. But system assignments aren't set in stone by any means.


6)The Condor and Tarsus; With such a difference between their systems, I wonder if some humans out there still have a piece of advanced Dominion knowledge tucked away, or if I missed some detail about the refitting process involved; Did I? It seems strange that there would be those willing to improve ships like the Buffalo and the Tarsus, but not others - save maybe for the explanation of cost or abundance/scarcity.

Hmm, good point. I'll be honest here - I didn't consider that :) Refer to above point about system assignments not being final, though I think they'll stay this way for now, and we'll work it out when/if conversion mechanics are finalized. You can expect a bit of lore retrofitting there, if gameplay requires it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 03, 2012, 01:16:40 PM
You just carved up and served Strifen's post, Alex. ;D  Anyway, I still think the Tempest will be a bit OP with the Active Flares, and unless I'm misunderstanding something, don't they have a greater change to distract a regular missile?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 03, 2012, 01:32:35 PM
You just carved up and served Strifen's post, Alex. ;D

Hm, I don't believe I was doing that. Just answering his (very legitimate) questions as best I can.

Anyway, I still think the Tempest will be a bit OP with the Active Flares, and unless I'm misunderstanding something, don't they have a greater change to distract a regular missile?

You'll just have to wait and see! I mean, for all you know right now, "greater chance" could mean 1% greater. It doesn't, but that's not the point - the point is it's a little early to dissect it quite at that level :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 03, 2012, 01:40:48 PM
Hopefully you knew that was a joke. ;D
Anyway, I shall wait and see for myself. ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 03, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
Thanks for the welcome, and wow that's a quicker response than I excpected.
  Some more things...

@sdmike1
  Seems they do get affected,but you SEEM to be right about the ECCM. Unguided missles don't magically gain tracking ...do they?

@Vandala
  That is a good point you make about balance concerning Missile defence, but taking into account the shield strength and ammount of Point Defenses of most high tech ships,plus the other systems they will be getting (Fortress Shield, Phase Skimmer/Teleporter, PD/Sensor Drones, High Energy Focus, and EMP Emitter) they seem to have missile defence far better covered than Lowtech ships and (especially) Midtechs - though that's assuming people use uniformed epoch based fleets, which is abit unlikely.

  The point was that it's very strange that the dominion would opt to equip the Tempest with a Flare launcher system when you take into account the other ships that have them - it screams "I don't belong here". Transport-Transport-Transport-Attack Frigate-Transport...

@Alex
1)Phase cloaks? http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cloaking_device#The_interphase_cloak with some sort of flux buildup? will enemy ships remain 'visible'?

2)I try to use missiles when the enemy ships 1-Shields drop 2-Vents 3-Overloads 4-are trying to stay in that sweet spot between my weapons range and theirs(Looking at you, hounds)
In these cases, usually point defenses, manuevering, momentum, recovery of shields, enemy allies, or lack of missile fuel are the reaons the missles fail. Some still hit, but not enough to make it worthwhile imo. Wonder what I could be doing wrong...I tend to stick with Pilrums, Sabots, and Harpoons for guided missles.

4) No tales of AI blunders and buffoonary? Drat.

3)I see...I assume then that flares can be shot down fairly easily with other weapons then? Will PDs Target flares? Will flares target Flares?

5)Gameplay-wise, makes sense. Lore-wise...not so much(as explained in @Vandala), but then again 6)Retrofitting!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 03, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
I really can't bring myself to care about uniformity if it just works. A flare system was the one thing the Tempest was missing, it can already outgun anything that can catch up with it and outrun anything that can outgun it, the only problem it had was with missiles which tend to clump up around it and eventually overwhelm it (unless your a really skilled pilot). With a flare system it now has an answer for this problem.

Are you seriously telling me you're not happy with it because the kind of ships it shares this ability with are not alike enough?

The Astral, the Gemini and the Apogee are nothing alike either, yet they all share a drone system, is that not right either?

The Sunder, Aurora, and Odyssey are also quite different ships with the same system, is that not weird to you?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 03, 2012, 04:46:05 PM
It's all about balance, how it will affect it in battle.  Personally, I've got to wait for the new version before I take a side.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 03, 2012, 04:48:45 PM
1)Phase cloaks? http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cloaking_device#The_interphase_cloak with some sort of flux buildup? will enemy ships remain 'visible'?

The specifics are TBD at the moment.

2)I try to use missiles when the enemy ships 1-Shields drop 2-Vents 3-Overloads 4-are trying to stay in that sweet spot between my weapons range and theirs(Looking at you, hounds)
In these cases, usually point defenses, manuevering, momentum, recovery of shields, enemy allies, or lack of missile fuel are the reaons the missles fail. Some still hit, but not enough to make it worthwhile imo. Wonder what I could be doing wrong...I tend to stick with Pilrums, Sabots, and Harpoons for guided missles.

Ah. Well, Pilums are a special case - meant for pressure and harassment, not so much for burst like the most other missiles. As for what you're doing - shields dropping by itself isn't enough to make using missiles automatic, as PD and movement can still counter them. It's important to consider that, and make sure you fire missiles when the relative velocities of the ships make a hit more likely. That's especially important vs frigates - I'd say a well-timed Harpoon has a solid chance to hit a Hound (probably still less than 50%, but relatively high - and a Hound is one of the hardest things to hit), and if it hits, its devastating.

3)I see...I assume then that flares can be shot down fairly easily with other weapons then? Will PDs Target flares? Will flares target Flares?

PD targets flares, yeah. Flares don't target other flares :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 03, 2012, 04:51:18 PM
PD targets flares, yeah. Flares don't target other flares :)

Bwahaha, it be funny if they did, Tempest combat - Attack of the flares! Then again, that would probably be boring to watch.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 03, 2012, 06:55:25 PM
Are you seriously telling me you're not happy with it because the kind of ships it shares this ability with are not alike enough?

The Astral, the Gemini and the Apogee are nothing alike either, yet they all share a drone system, is that not right either?

The Sunder, Aurora, and Odyssey are also quite different ships with the same system, is that not weird to you?
 1)Yes, in a sense(If by "not happy" you mean curious, and by "not alike enough" you mean "So drastically different and antiquated when compared to the Tempest it's strange")
  It stands out as a significantly different ship when compared to the rest of the ships with the system; what would happen lore-wise at the end of the Expansion epoch that would require a new advanced attack frigate to employ systems touted previously by only the slow, meek, and/or unshielded transports of (Presumably) bygone epochs?

  2)Highly variable Drone systems.
  The Astral is a Technologically advanced carrier and features heavily automated systems, but remains vulnerable due to size, speed, and weak armor; Advanced point defense drones make sense, though other systems such as engine or shield boosts would have also been quite viable.
  The Apogee, while it doesn't share much similarity with any other ships, save maybe in colour with the Shuttle, Gemini and Oddyssey and stats with the Aurora, is fitted to provide 360 shield coverage, has powerful shields, and strong engines, fitted with long range scanners, and is 'perfect for long-range exploration of hostile space'- It seems like a very paranoid ship, sensor drones suit it(that the sensor drones are equipped with Ion cannons is also suspicious, like it was designed for trying to capture some new and fairly unknown hostile.). That in this day and age it's quite useful for tech mining doesn't hurt too much either.
  I don't find that the Gemini having PD Drones is too strange, but I don't have too much of reference point; It was likely made during a time of some prosperity or intense trading considering the modular, quick releasing nature of its 'Cargo bay'; the lack of energy weapons but advanced shield indicates it might be an early-Midtech design; The Codex speculates about its flight deck being used for Mining drone repairs, but I'd guess it was used by Broadswords, Warthogs and Talons escorting the Gemini, and the PD Drones would only support that it was indeed equipped to deal with hostiles, likely Pirates.(That Codex entry about mining drone repair sure does have me wondering though...)

3)The Sunder, Aurora and Odyssey are all fairly heavily invested in the use of energy weapons so it's not weird to me.(I was also going to make connections here between the Sunder, Tempest(Both 'Expansion Epoch'), and later High-tech class hull structures, possible design connections, but I lost myself, and so I'll leave it at that.)

PD targets flares, yeah. Flares don't target other flares :)
 Ah, seems I phrased that incorrectly - actually, it might be better if I asked it like this: Will Flares act like Asteroids and bump off(Or 'explode' on) each other and ships, or will they act like Fighters and fly through each other and ships?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 03, 2012, 07:17:03 PM
They act like guided missiles - they'll hit anything except for friendly ships (and explode on hit, doing some very minor damage).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 03, 2012, 08:20:45 PM
Amusing how you can come up with all these reasons for all these ships having the systems they do yet you do not extent this to the tempest.

You can clearly see that it is the utility of the system that matters, not the similarities between ships its mounted on.

The Tempest is a very advanced dog-fighter frigate, however it simply does not have the weapon package to deal with missiles, therefor, the flare system.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: silentstormpt on July 04, 2012, 07:12:17 AM
Hum Cloaks would be awesome to add on the Star Trek mod, theres quite a few special systems that fit right in the mod, some only need to change their name heh
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Hopelessnoob on July 04, 2012, 09:35:52 AM
To celebrate this birth of this grand nation how about updated patch notes?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on July 04, 2012, 01:00:12 PM
To celebrate this birth of this grand nation how about updated patch notes?

Patch notes will be updated as soon as there is something to update them with.

This isn't a company where stuff is intentionally held back until the next major event/holiday where announcing it is "bigger".
As soon as Alex has some changes that he is certain will make it into the update, he'll add them to the preliminary patchnotes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 04, 2012, 01:12:36 PM
Agree with the above; however a new blog post would be fantastic (as long as there is actually a topic to discuss).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Micromystic on July 04, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
Just some ideas. Food for thought as the saying goes...

I think a good ship system would be an energy overcharge. All energy weapons begin firing high intensity lazers at a rapid rate. But the downside is it wont stop firing until you overcharge your generator, flux usage is increased drastically, and shields are disabled.
Also an idea would be for ship modification would be like purchasing like cargo, crew, or fuel etc. etc. upgrades units. these "units" take space and depending on the ship a limited number of them. aka bigger ship gets more units, smaller less. you could also do something like the more units you have the weaker your hull is or the units can be destroyed. Something along those lines.
I think the inventory menu should be divided up by each ship. This would make mothballing ships so much easier and it would add a different touch to the inventory managing. if a ship is destroyed or disabled  some if not all inventory is lost.
And as a side note enemy crew should be capture-able.  it makes sense right?
Anyway i don't mean to sound cynical. this is an amazing game and i just love it. keep up the good work.  :) :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 04, 2012, 04:02:01 PM
Amusing how you can come up with all these reasons for all these ships having the systems they do yet you do not extent this to the tempest.

You can clearly see that it is the utility of the system that matters, not the similarities between ships its mounted on.

The Tempest is a very advanced dog-fighter frigate, however it simply does not have the weapon package to deal with missiles, therefor, the flare system.

  Haven't had many problems with enemy missiles,and generally find them underwhelming personally, I have far more trouble against ballistic weapons.; realized most of your point is "Tempest can't deal with Missiles." after I'd spent a great deal of time thinking about many things that lead me far away from the point, you could be right.

  I'd have to consider other factors, most of which aren't available yet.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 04, 2012, 05:32:45 PM
Whoo Hoo!!

*throws confetty*

I almost got through to someone.  ;D

Missiles can be difficult to utilize by are rather powerful. You should try out the Aurora ship, it got lots of missile slots right up front, see for yourself how powerful missiles can be. Just use them in the way they are intended to be used. Read their description, see what kind of damage they do, how fast they fly, wither they have a tracking capability or not.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: KriiEiter on July 05, 2012, 10:17:42 AM
Whoo Hoo!!

*throws confetty*

I almost got through to someone.  ;D

Missiles can be difficult to utilize by are rather powerful. You should try out the Aurora ship, it got lots of missile slots right up front, see for yourself how powerful missiles can be. Just use them in the way they are intended to be used. Read their description, see what kind of damage they do, how fast they fly, wither they have a tracking capability or not.

Yeah, I love the Aurora with Torpedos and Annihilator Rockets.  Overwhelm shields with rockets, torpedo, GG.  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Giangiotto on July 05, 2012, 12:36:50 PM
What I do with missile slots is keep them all empty and use the saved points to improve the ship.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 05, 2012, 12:43:56 PM
Harpoons are always a good idea.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 05, 2012, 01:52:13 PM
For me it really depends on the ship. I would never take the missiles off a wolf or lasher, but I don't use them on Hammerheads, Medusae, Eagles, or Falcons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Pelhamds on July 05, 2012, 02:20:46 PM
Harpoons are always a good idea.

Yes! Not the only one :) What I do is to get as many harpoons as possible as they are perfect I believe.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 05, 2012, 02:48:15 PM
For me it really depends on the ship. I would never take the missiles off a wolf or lasher, but I don't use them on Hammerheads, Medusae, Eagles, or Falcons.
You should try the single harpoon missiles on those ships. A single harpoon is totally worth a single OP point.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 05, 2012, 03:01:58 PM
Can a missile have a 0 OP cost?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: pigreko on July 05, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
hey, I were thinking about a thing: since there are so many changes to the gameplay, with the explosive introduction of a completely new mechanics, I think it deserves the 0.6a name ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 05, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
Can a missile have a 0 OP cost?
No, but I think a single Harpoon missile gives move flexibility than a single vent or capacitor.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 05, 2012, 05:58:41 PM
hey, I were thinking about a thing: since there are so many changes to the gameplay, with the explosive introduction of a completely new mechanics, I think it deserves the 0.6a name ;)
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/03/07/starfarer-0-51a-release/
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 06, 2012, 07:37:24 PM
Even though he said the next one is going to be .52a, .53a, etc, I think version numbers should be determined by the number of updates as well as how gamechanging the update is.  For example, if starfarer right now were 1.0.0, this update might be called 1.1.0 due to a totally new game system being added, Ship Systems.  Smaller updates might be ship balances (like the Conquest balances in .52a) and Admiral AI changes.  Large gameplay changes, such as the introduction of Campaign, might deserve higher second-degree numbers.  The first number, in my opinion, should not be changed unless the game goes past 10 major updates (and I mean major, like campaign-size additions/changes or otherwise) or the game advances into a stage, e.g. from Alpha to Beta stage.  A forth number can be added, or a letter for this game's case, if anything's small enough.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psycho Society on July 06, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
Who cares? There's no need to make things more complicated than they need to be.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on July 07, 2012, 12:06:24 AM
There's no need to make things more complicated than they need to be.

I'll happily drink a toast to that. Remember the classic KISS principle: "Keep It Simple, Stupid". ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on July 07, 2012, 04:34:19 AM
My question (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3140.msg46387#msg46387) to Alex was buried under great amount of posts in this topic and left unanswered, I will just repeat it :)

1) Will I be able to put more then one system per ship?
2) Will I be able to make hull mods to add another system on ship per installation?
3) Do you intend to add cloaking, stealth and other cover ops related stuff?
4) Do you intend to add drive, engines, teleportation inhibition stuff?
5) Do you intend to add weapon jamming and missile jammers/redirectors?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 07, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
My question (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3140.msg46387#msg46387) to Alex was buried under great amount of posts in this topic and left unanswered, I will just repeat it :)

Hey there - my apologies, I did indeed miss your questions.

1) Will I be able to put more then one system per ship?
2) Will I be able to make hull mods to add another system on ship per installation?
3) Do you intend to add cloaking, stealth and other cover ops related stuff?
4) Do you intend to add drive, engines, teleportation inhibition stuff?
5) Do you intend to add weapon jamming and missile jammers/redirectors?

1 & 2: no.

3: Cloaking, technically yes, but it might not be quite what you'd expect. As for non-combat stealth, that's TBD.

4: Not at this point - in general, I think you have to be careful about adding things that directly affect another ship. Remember, chances are the player will be on the receiving end of it at some point, too - so it has to be very clear visually and have ways to be countered. In some sense, this is already in the game - you shoot up another ship, and its weapons/engines can go offline. You overload it, its systems go offline. I'm not sold on the benefits of having a parallel system to do this, though don't take it as a 100% no.

5: Refer to #4 to a degree. Flares act like much like missile jammers, btw, and so does the EMP system - so that'll be in the game, though perhaps not quite like you were envisioning.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 07, 2012, 03:34:54 PM
Alex, could you tell us how far the Skimmer teleports your ship? To the edge of your screen or what?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 07, 2012, 09:28:03 PM
Alex, could you tell us how far the Skimmer teleports your ship? To the edge of your screen or what?

300 pixels (at default zoom) in the direction that the ship is going. Or, if it's not moving, in the direction that it's facing. It'll also come out of the skim facing the closest enemy ship (or the targeted enemy ship), if it's nearby.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 07, 2012, 09:31:35 PM
Alex, could you tell us how far the Skimmer teleports your ship? To the edge of your screen or what?

300 pixels (at default zoom) in the direction that the ship is going. Or, if it's not moving, in the direction that it's facing. It'll also come out of the skim facing the closest enemy ship (or the targeted enemy ship), if it's nearby.
Interesting, does the Phase Teleporter have a similar mechanic?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 07, 2012, 09:32:15 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 08, 2012, 03:05:50 AM
Ohh nice. Making it even easier to use it as a strike mechanic.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on July 08, 2012, 03:25:44 AM
1) Will I be able to put more then one system per ship?
2) Will I be able to make hull mods to add another system on ship per installation?
3) Do you intend to add cloaking, stealth and other cover ops related stuff?
4) Do you intend to add drive, engines, teleportation inhibition stuff?
5) Do you intend to add weapon jamming and missile jammers/redirectors?

1 & 2: no.
This is bad news :(

3: Cloaking, technically yes, but it might not be quite what you'd expect. As for non-combat stealth, that's TBD.
Well, I spoke about combat one, like in SPAZ.

4: Not at this point - in general, I think you have to be careful about adding things that directly affect another ship. Remember, chances are the player will be on the receiving end of it at some point, too - so it has to be very clear visually and have ways to be countered. In some sense, this is already in the game - you shoot up another ship, and its weapons/engines can go offline. You overload it, its systems go offline. I'm not sold on the benefits of having a parallel system to do this, though don't take it as a 100% no.
You need to play an EVE Online for little bit to understand benefits of parallel systems, actually CCP done great job on Electronic Warfare section, it's really good example for all space games, who want to implement EWAR. The more possibilities you will give to ships, the more interesting and tactical Starfarer will be.

5: Refer to #4 to a degree. Flares act like much like missile jammers, btw, and so does the EMP system - so that'll be in the game, though perhaps not quite like you were envisioning.
Well there is great difference between flare, missile jammer/redirector. Flares just make missile follow them, Missile Jammer/Redirector alternates missile destination with beam/wave.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 08, 2012, 06:58:14 AM
I actually like that ship systems only have one per hull and that those systems are exclusive to the ships they are on. It adds diversity to the ships.

Cloaking I can take or leave. It annoyed me in SPAZ because the AI wasn't very good with it.

As for the EWAR, it would be cool, but it really isn't needed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on July 08, 2012, 07:50:25 AM
I think it would be far too complicated to manage multiple systems on a ship. How would you swap between them and how the hell would you balance something like that?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 08, 2012, 08:52:30 AM
You need to play an EVE Online for little bit to understand benefits of parallel systems, actually CCP done great job on Electronic Warfare section, it's really good example for all space games, who want to implement EWAR.

I don't think whether something works in EVE - a PVP focused game with very different combat mechanics and pacing - has much relevance to whether it will work in Starfarer.

The more possibilities you will give to ships, the more interesting and tactical Starfarer will be.

This actually isn't true. Since it's all vs the AI, there's no metagame going on, and if there's a combination of things you can do that games the AI very badly, it'll make the game less interesting and tactical. This kind of thing becomes more likely as the game becomes more complex.

Having a more robust AI operate within a smaller set of rules/mechanics is, imo, preferable to having a poorer AI and a larger set of mechanics. Since there's no magic, those really are the two options - "as robust an AI with a larger set of mechanics" isn't one of the choices :)

Heck, just adding *one* system per ship is challenging enough on that front.


Edit: the above could be read as saying that more features is always bad - clearly, that's not the case, or you wouldn't have any features at all, and a very robust AI that was great at doing nothing. As with everything, one has to balance the two. So, what I'm really saying is that "more features = better" isn't always true, rather than always untrue. Which, nonetheless, is enough to hamper its usefulness as an argument for adding features.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 08, 2012, 08:58:58 AM
Hey Alex, since you are so kindly answering questions. Any ETA on the patch?

And "SoonTm is not a proper answer.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 08, 2012, 08:59:38 AM
yes it is  ;) it  will be done when it is ready
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 08, 2012, 09:05:36 AM
Hey Alex, since you are so kindly answering questions. Any ETA on the patch?

And "SoonTm is not a proper answer.

It's always Soon(tm) - because I don't want to be in the position of picking between 1) having to release something that's not ready and 2) not following through on what I promised.

Yeah, you might say it's just an ETA, but that's not how people tend to look at it. Before you know it, it gets reposted somewhere else (without any qualifiers I might attach to it, like "maybe", "if X goes well", etc), and there you go.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on July 08, 2012, 09:32:38 AM
so Alex, whats the progress in % ?
common man , give us HOPE or something, don't run on bahamas or North Pole with our money :D
 
no rly don't  8)
                                                                              ::)                                           
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 08, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
Quote
so Alex, whats the progress in % ?
common man , give us HOPE or something, don't run on bahamas or North Pole with our money
He won't, trust me i played a doctor on TV  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 08, 2012, 10:21:35 AM
this is a simulation of the AI using electronic warfare... this is only a simulation

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/arwan2/noob.gif)

here is the effect on the average player

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/arwan2/icon_rant.gif)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 08, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
PHASE SHIPS!!!
  l
 \/
http://twitter.com/amosolov (http://twitter.com/amosolov)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 08, 2012, 07:03:05 PM
Quote
From the AI testing files: "Let's see how badly this phase cruiser gets slaughtered by the Dominator! ... Oh, it won."
Interesting.  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 08, 2012, 07:25:17 PM
Oh?  I's say that's patchnote worthy.
Nevertheless, very, very interesting Alex.  I wonder what kind of ship you would expect to get slaughtered but wins with Phase cloaking. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 09, 2012, 03:38:35 AM
ALEX! This is very patchnoteworthy! Grant me patchnotes!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Vandala on July 09, 2012, 04:45:06 AM
ALEX! This is very patchnoteworthy! Grant me patchnotes!
He's still testing it, so nothing patchnoteworthy just yet.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 09, 2012, 05:17:11 AM
But if it's already been revealed, what benefit is there in it being added to the patchnotes? :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 09, 2012, 05:27:13 AM
Because not everyone looks at his twitter?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 09, 2012, 05:41:04 AM
He has 750 followers on twitter and there is about 2k people on the forum.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 09, 2012, 05:48:32 AM
It's also just been posted here. Which was my point
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 09, 2012, 06:18:54 AM
Not everyone reads everything on the forum. Many just checks for new patchnotes some times.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 09, 2012, 06:22:28 AM
This could also be BLOG worthy... A whole new topic to discuss at length.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 09, 2012, 06:31:47 AM
This could also be BLOG worthy... A whole new topic to discuss at length.

This
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: cp252 on July 09, 2012, 12:34:55 PM
Is it time for Assassin's Creed: Corvus?
/photoshops a silly cloak onto a ship
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 09, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Alex, will you fix the combat music looping forever in this upcoming version?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 09, 2012, 01:18:23 PM
Is it time for Assassin's Creed: Corvus?
/photoshops a silly cloak onto a ship
/\
 l
we need this mod, just have a bunch of weaponry with a range of like 10 when phase ships come out
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 09, 2012, 01:35:25 PM
Alex, will you fix the combat music looping forever in this upcoming version?

Technically, since is says *right where you would mod combat music in* that it doesn't work, it not working is not a bug and therefore not something that can be "fixed".

However, I fully intend for it to work in a future version :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 09, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
But will it be this upcoming version? It's crucial for me to know, since alot of my mods music tracks are dependent on it ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 09, 2012, 02:55:20 PM
I'll probably get to it when combat tracks are in the game (which isn't the next release), but we'll see.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 09, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
Awwww :(

Wait, so there'll be combat tracks in the game? :o

How epic will they be, on a scale from 1-10? Or is that information you cannot disclose?  Or is that top-secret information that, if you disclosed it to me, i'd have to be shot on sight? :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 09, 2012, 02:58:41 PM
Note: I said tracks, not music. The rest, :-X
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Scroll2020 on July 09, 2012, 05:30:52 PM
This could also be BLOG worthy... A whole new topic to discuss at length.

It's almost as if Alex reads the forums.  :P

I'm sure it's actually a coincidence. It's a damn great topic for a blog post.

Looking forward to more options with music as that's something that I want to work on for mods personally. A couple patches away actually gives me time to get to grips with music editing for this game..
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 10, 2012, 05:34:12 AM
Hey, i might be late to the party but:

"Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose"

Why? I actually really used that. :(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 10, 2012, 06:28:12 AM
Hey, i might be late to the party but:

"Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose"

Why? I actually really used that. :(

Yeah i did aswell ;(
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 10, 2012, 07:11:07 AM
Hey, i might be late to the party but:

"Removed key binding for raising flux on purpose"

Why? I actually really used that. :(

Because that's the button for ship systems now.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 10, 2012, 09:16:16 AM
But the functionality remains, just reassigned to another key right?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 10, 2012, 09:20:32 AM
But the functionality remains, just reassigned to another key right?
No.  He completely removed it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psycho Society on July 10, 2012, 10:36:45 AM
I always considered that function to be for testing anyways. It was extraneous, adding flux only allows you to 'game' energy weapons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 10, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
Which you can do anyway by just firing off a few of your energy weapons before you are in range.

Besides, my trouble with energy weapons is trying to dissipate flux, not generate it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 10, 2012, 12:04:08 PM
Being able to manually increase flux levels isn't worthless, but... if the fight is going to be close, I always found it better to come in at zero flux and let enemy weapon fire build up my flux levels.  And if I expected incoming damage to be low enough that I could afford to manually boost flux levels, well, that meant the enemy was toast anyway and it didn't matter.

That said, I've come up with a notion that would, for a few ships, make manual flux boosting actually a worthwhile tactical option; see suggestion here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3387.msg51418#msg51418).

Which you can do anyway by just firing off a few of your energy weapons before you are in range.

Besides, my trouble with energy weapons is trying to dissipate flux, not generate it.
Not necessarily; I much prefer to have flux dissipation at least equal to maximum flux generation.  It's not always possible, especially if you're using heavy blasters - but, for an example, my standard Apogee design can fire its plasma cannon indefinitely without cumulative flux build-up.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: darklaurence on July 10, 2012, 02:06:22 PM
Which you can do anyway by just firing off a few of your energy weapons before you are in range.

Besides, my trouble with energy weapons is trying to dissipate flux, not generate it.

you try building flux in a tempest with 2 energy weapons see how long it takes you  ships that just use primarily energy weapons it can be a really handy boost And really if its allready built into the game why not just leave it as an unassigned key?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 10, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
you try building flux in a tempest with 2 energy weapons see how long it takes you
Half a second. Take one hit to your shields.

And really if its allready built into the game why not just leave it as an unassigned key?
I don't know. Maybe it was a game mechanic that a developer thought was unnecessary, or maybe they thought it was unbalanced for whatever reason.

Not necessarily; I much prefer to have flux dissipation at least equal to maximum flux generation.
With that much flux dissipation, I wouldn't think manually increasing your flux levels would be a part of your strategy, but I could see how manually raising your flux levels would be safer and easier that way.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 10, 2012, 02:17:15 PM
  Didn't use the Flux build up key much; thought it might be used for speedy mining later on - guess not. Might make a comeback as part of a system later on though, who knows.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 10, 2012, 02:56:26 PM
I never found a use for the flux buildup key - if I'm in an energy weapon ship and want more flux, I stick around longer. Hits to the shield and my own weapon fire do a fine job raising flux, and by sticking around longer I do more damage.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 10, 2012, 03:39:49 PM
I never found a use for the flux buildup key - if I'm in an energy weapon ship and want more flux, I stick around longer. Hits to the shield and my own weapon fire do a fine job raising flux, and by sticking around longer I do more damage.

If a ship is overloading and you need to deal that extra damage to finish it off.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 10, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
I just found that I never used the flux key just because of it's sheer uselessness.  If I want more damage with my energy weapons, I put all my weapons on autofire and wait.  Takes a few seconds, and I'm doing damage while I'm at it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 10, 2012, 05:03:30 PM
long range lance snipping?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on July 10, 2012, 06:03:46 PM
just wondering... how big a role will the systems play in combat?

For example the omen's main armament seems to be its EMP (since it takes up the whole middle of the sprite)

Are wolves and medusae going to become the ships that just skim around? Or are they still gonna spend most of their time going around conventionally and going pew-pew at the enemy?

Basically, about how often can systems be used and how much would it effect what a ship is doing on the battlefield most of the time
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 10, 2012, 06:29:10 PM
There'a a cooldown of 10 seconds for burn drive, maybe that will give you an idea of cooldown for skimmers.  Alex will have to answer that, though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 10, 2012, 06:37:12 PM
just wondering... how big a role will the systems play in combat?

For example the omen's main armament seems to be its EMP (since it takes up the whole middle of the sprite)

Are wolves and medusae going to become the ships that just skim around? Or are they still gonna spend most of their time going around conventionally and going pew-pew at the enemy?

Basically, about how often can systems be used and how much would it effect what a ship is doing on the battlefield most of the time

That's a good question - it depends on the system. For the phase skimmer, the cooldown is 5 seconds but it can build up to 3 charges - so, while you won't be skimming around all the time, it's really useful for darting in or out, or for getting around the map a little faster.

Some systems are more situational - such as flares. The number of uses for those is limited, too.

Other systems are more passive - such as the various drone launchers. You won't likely be "using" them (i.e., pressing the 'f' key) a lot, but they'll be around on the battlefield most of the time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 10, 2012, 07:25:49 PM
Oh?  The Phase Skimmer has charges?  does that mean you have an infinite number of uses, if you let them charge up like burst weapons?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 10, 2012, 08:05:21 PM
Oh?  The Phase Skimmer has charges?  does that mean you have an infinite number of uses, if you let them charge up like burst weapons?

Yep, that's exactly how it works. That way you can build up a few charges and use it in rapid succession - which turned out to be really fun in testing, but very overpowered if you could just do it at that rate all the time. Hence, the charges.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on July 10, 2012, 10:06:00 PM
so phase skimmers are gonna be spending a lot of the time jumping around in the battlefield?

hmm (was hoping for it to be a bit rarer, but there's always modding, right?)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on July 11, 2012, 02:52:15 AM
whoa... wait a min, so you wanna tell me that building flux up option will disappear ?

even if its ussles & even to me thats have to stay, i wanna know that i have that option even if i ain't use it

(butt hell, i'm ... in the start of the battle when im fire "lance" or any long reloading laser wepon)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on July 11, 2012, 05:05:02 AM
There have been a few times where I just haven't been able to push down a retreating ship's shields fast enough with low/zero flux, and building up flux has allowed me to overload the shields in time, The dissipation was high enough to never build up flux by firing, and the retreating ship was not firing upon my craft, so the only way ti build up flux was via the manual key.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 11, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
Same, on some ships i personally run in with engine boosted flux 0, raise shields while flux boosting and deliver a nice clean 40% extra damage with my energies which pretty much run cool.

Even the Oddysey i sometimes manually max flux just so i can deliver a crisp blow from my autopulses in a short ammount of time, given the fact that having the target in my crosshairs is a rare thing.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 11, 2012, 11:36:32 AM
Maybe I'm out the loop as a ballistics guy, but what does purposely building up your flux with a key do?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on July 11, 2012, 11:40:39 AM
More flux means more energy weapon damage (in percentages). So building up flux means increasing your damage at the cost of making you an easier target.

Anyway, personally I never found a use for building up flux, but I certainly did see some usage in it: A little more damage in the first strike, more damage from a safe, supporting beam ship...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 11, 2012, 11:43:13 AM
I realize that this is sometimes useful, and so removing it as an option is, strictly speaking, a slight nerf to energy-weapon-using ships. I just think it's an awkward mechanic, and it is pretty useless most of the time - so simplifying things a bit by removing it is worthwhile.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 11, 2012, 11:48:59 AM
we hear you :D
we are just griping because we can :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: silentstormpt on July 11, 2012, 11:59:33 AM
Oh yeah, one question, while its impossible to have 2 ship systems on a player ship, can we add 2 or more on a variant for AI ships only, for example, adding a custom made Cloak and High Energy Focus so i could place them on a Bird or Prey on my Star Trek mod, when he comes out of cloak he (the AI) can use the High Energy Focus to burn out an enemy target?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 11, 2012, 12:04:18 PM
Oh yeah, one question, while its impossible to have 2 ship systems on a player ship, can we add 2 or more on a variant for AI ships only, for example, adding a custom made Cloak and High Energy Focus so i could place them on a Bird or Prey on my Star Trek mod, when he comes out of cloak he (the AI) can use the High Energy Focus to burn out an enemy target?

No. You'd have other problems there, though - you wouldn't be able to write a custom AI for a brand-new system like that in the first place.

Also, systems are specified per-hull, not per variant.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Blips on July 11, 2012, 12:25:47 PM
Hey Alex. ETA on update / new update notes?  ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 11, 2012, 12:43:01 PM
I realize that this is sometimes useful, and so removing it as an option is, strictly speaking, a slight nerf to energy-weapon-using ships. I just think it's an awkward mechanic, and it is pretty useless most of the time - so simplifying things a bit by removing it is worthwhile.
It is pretty much useless for all shot-based weapons.

However, it can be EXTREMELY (I cannot stress it enough) useful to beam weapons - just because you need that few points of damage to break enemy ship's flux dissipation and start building up his flux. Best example? High Intensity Laser - some may say it's not worth anything, but it has low OP cost, very good range, and low flux. You can stay out of Dominator's range all the time, and slowly build up his flux, thanks to increasing your damage via F key (provided you have two HILs of course - one is still not enough).

Regardless of ship attacked, ability to increase your damage output is very valuable when used with beam weapons - it essentialy helps overcome their biggest problem which is soft flux buildup. It doesn't make a tactical laser an anti-capital weapon, but it gets you the edge needed. While exposing you to an overload, of course.

That is my opinion on the subject, and while I understand this decision, I do not agree with it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 11, 2012, 01:02:22 PM
I realize that this is sometimes useful, and so removing it as an option is, strictly speaking, a slight nerf to energy-weapon-using ships. I just think it's an awkward mechanic, and it is pretty useless most of the time - so simplifying things a bit by removing it is worthwhile.

To be fair, if that facility is removed, i'd say remove the bonus while high-fluxed and just blanket the energy weapons with +5% damage. Since it's a passive gameplay feature that you just 'have there' without any serious direct control. This forces you do to random stuff like shooting wildly to raise flux and just doesn't feel right.

And i'm not a developer by a long shot, but keeping the feature in shouldn't be that much of a hassle, and not like Starfarer takes up half the keyboard.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 11, 2012, 01:09:32 PM
To be fair, if that facility is removed, i'd say remove the bonus while high-fluxed and just blanket the energy weapons with +5% damage. Since it's a passive gameplay feature that you just 'have there' without any serious direct control. This forces you do to random stuff like shooting wildly to raise flux and just doesn't feel right.
Or, why don't you shoot at an enemy to raise your flux? Crazy, I know.

A 5% increase in energy weapon damage while taking out the flux bonus would be an even larger nerf to energy weapons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on July 11, 2012, 01:11:53 PM
Great , so now that will be ARCADE style battlepaly -_-'
common that ain't right, buildup flux must stay

                                                                                    :-[                                                             
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 11, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
To be fair, if that facility is removed, i'd say remove the bonus while high-fluxed and just blanket the energy weapons with +5% damage. Since it's a passive gameplay feature that you just 'have there' without any serious direct control. This forces you do to random stuff like shooting wildly to raise flux and just doesn't feel right.
Or, why don't you shoot at an enemy to raise your flux? Crazy, I know.

A 5% increase in energy weapon damage while taking out the flux bonus would be an even larger nerf to energy weapons.

Considering you'd have the bonus full time, even at low flux.. ok, 5% might be low, but i'm not the one to be making those figures.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 11, 2012, 01:39:40 PM
So i just wanted to be sure that we have nothing better to talk about.

But honestly guys i understand your frustration but seriously, do we have nothing better to talk about? phase ships? ship systems? ect?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 11, 2012, 01:52:44 PM
All items that we have no perceptible experience on how they work and how gameplay is affected by them. We'll see and feedback as appropriate once we get first-hand knowledge. But we do know and can compare and analyze the issue of removing the flux-raise-functionality.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on July 11, 2012, 02:18:59 PM
Well, there's a topic over in the suggestions forum about redesigning the High-Energy Focus that's somewhat related to this. It's meant to solve a different issue, but part of the re-design is basically giving the active part of the system the same flux-raising functionality that the 'F' key currently gives.

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3387.0
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 11, 2012, 02:25:07 PM
However, it can be EXTREMELY (I cannot stress it enough) useful to beam weapons - just because you need that few points of damage to break enemy ship's flux dissipation and start building up his flux. Best example? High Intensity Laser - some may say it's not worth anything, but it has low OP cost, very good range, and low flux. You can stay out of Dominator's range all the time, and slowly build up his flux, thanks to increasing your damage via F key (provided you have two HILs of course - one is still not enough).

Regardless of ship attacked, ability to increase your damage output is very valuable when used with beam weapons - it essentialy helps overcome their biggest problem which is soft flux buildup. It doesn't make a tactical laser an anti-capital weapon, but it gets you the edge needed. While exposing you to an overload, of course.

That is my opinion on the subject, and while I understand this decision, I do not agree with it.

Honestly, to me that's more of an argument for remove the feature. If it's most useful to facilitate the kind of kiting that beam weapons aren't supposed to be able to do, then it really needs to go.

The soft flux is there precisely so you have a much harder time punching through shields with what's an efficient and long-ranged weapon typically mounted on a faster (given same ship size) hulls. Otherwise, it'd be a "clear best" setup - best range, enough speed to stay out of the way, can deliver enough damage to kill. Not a good thing.

Also doesn't change the fact that the way the 'f' key works now is a pretty awkward way to go about it.

The fact that firing at nothing can accomplish the same thing isn't good, though. Bears a bit more thought - I am considering removing that mechanic altogether and giving energy weapons a slight boost across the board, but not settled on it either way.


Well, there's a topic over in the suggestions forum about redesigning the High-Energy Focus that's somewhat related to this. It's meant to solve a different issue, but part of the re-design is basically giving the active part of the system the same flux-raising functionality that the 'F' key currently gives.

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3387.0

Yeah, transferring this functionality to a ship system (i.e the HEF), rather than getting rid of it completely, might be a good way to go about it. I need to give that thread a closer look.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 11, 2012, 02:54:35 PM
Hm.  Those are some very good points.  Still... I wouldn't be too worried about beam kiting at the moment.  To take Neonesis' Dominator versus HIL example, you need 2x HIL.  Which means, at a minimum, 2x Sunder, or maybe 1x Odyssey - and, well, if I can't beat a single Dominator with that kind of force advantage, something is wrong, beam kiting or no beam kiting.

For me, at least, the damage boost from high flux just means that energy based ships get more dangerous as they take damage; it gives me an incentive to push the attack when my ship is getting high on flux, rather than playing safe and backing off to vent.  And it just looks neat to have the guns glowing as you gain flux.

Also doesn't change the fact that the way the 'f' key works now is a pretty awkward way to go about it.

The fact that firing at nothing can accomplish the same thing isn't good, though.

This is really the biggest reason I can see for changing things.  Hm.  One possibly interesting thought: what if you increased energy weapon damage & flux generation by, say, 25% across the board - and then had high flux levels reduce flux cost of energy weapons instead of increasing damage?  That would give some of the same feel of high flux = more firepower, keep the pretty glowing energy graphics for all ships, and totally remove any possible advantage to be had from artificially boosting your own flux levels.

I think that would combine fairly well with my HEF notion that naufrago linked to.  But it'd need a fair bit of balance testing.  On the other hand, just adding ship systems at all necessitates balance testing, so maybe now would be a good time to experiment?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 11, 2012, 03:06:20 PM
This is really the biggest reason I can see for changing things.  Hm.  One possibly interesting thought: what if you increased energy weapon damage & flux generation by, say, 25% across the board - and then had high flux levels reduce flux cost of energy weapons instead of increasing damage?  That would give some of the same feel of high flux = more firepower, keep the pretty glowing energy graphics for all ships, and totally remove any possible advantage to be had from artificially boosting your own flux levels.

I think that would combine fairly well with my HEF notion that naufrago linked to.  But it'd need a fair bit of balance testing.  On the other hand, just adding ship systems at all necessitates balance testing, so maybe now would be a good time to experiment?

At first blush, that seems like a very good idea. I'm not sure increasing the damage and flux costs is even necessary - just replacing the damage boost with a flux cost reduction might be enough.

One potential issue is it'll be harder to tell if you've got enough flux to fire certain weapons - like the Plasma Cannon or the AM Blaster... hmm.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 11, 2012, 03:12:25 PM
I'm not sure increasing the damage and flux costs is even necessary
You may be right, now that I think about it.  Worth testing, at least.

One potential issue is it'll be harder to tell if you've got enough flux to fire certain weapons - like the Plasma Cannon or the AM Blaster... hmm.
It should be easy enough to add an extra tic mark on the flux meter for "flux that will be generated if the player clicks to fire"... at least for things other than the plasma cannon; that three shot burst is neat, but does complicate the "do I have enough flux capacity to fire?" question.

Then again, I personally miss the old charge-up-and-release-to-fire plasma cannon.  That was a fun toy.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on July 11, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Hm.  Those are some very good points.  Still... I wouldn't be too worried about beam kiting at the moment.  To take Neonesis' Dominator versus HIL example, you need 2x HIL.  Which means, at a minimum, 2x Sunder, or maybe 1x Odyssey - and, well, if I can't beat a single Dominator with that kind of force advantage, something is wrong, beam kiting or no beam kiting.

For me, at least, the damage boost from high flux just means that energy based ships get more dangerous as they take damage; it gives me an incentive to push the attack when my ship is getting high on flux, rather than playing safe and backing off to vent.  And it just looks neat to have the guns glowing as you gain flux.

Also doesn't change the fact that the way the 'f' key works now is a pretty awkward way to go about it.

The fact that firing at nothing can accomplish the same thing isn't good, though.

This is really the biggest reason I can see for changing things.  Hm.  One possibly interesting thought: what if you increased energy weapon damage & flux generation by, say, 25% across the board - and then had high flux levels reduce flux cost of energy weapons instead of increasing damage?  That would give some of the same feel of high flux = more firepower, keep the pretty glowing energy graphics for all ships, and totally remove any possible advantage to be had from artificially boosting your own flux levels.

I think that would combine fairly well with my HEF notion that naufrago linked to.  But it'd need a fair bit of balance testing.  On the other hand, just adding ship systems at all necessitates balance testing, so maybe now would be a good time to experiment?

Well, the problem with that is that it wouldn't remove any advantage to raising your flux levels. It may make it harder to raise your flux outside of combat, though, which would be a plus. The problem I see is that it runs the risk of making energy weapons TOO powerful. Make the efficiency bonus too low and you run into a similar situation to what we have now, or worse, makes energy underpowered. Too high and it becomes overpowered. Finding that sweet spot will be difficult because the math isn't a straight conversion, and the risk of it completely destroying the balance is fairly high.

Of course, that would just make implementing it hard. Hard, but doable.

EDIT: Also, consider that removing the damage bonus makes energy weapons weaker against armor than currently. Being able to fire more often doesn't completely offset that.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 11, 2012, 03:20:03 PM
Honestly, to me that's more of an argument for remove the feature. If it's most useful to facilitate the kind of kiting that beam weapons aren't supposed to be able to do, then it really needs to go.

The soft flux is there precisely so you have a much harder time punching through shields with what's an efficient and long-ranged weapon typically mounted on a faster (given same ship size) hulls. Otherwise, it'd be a "clear best" setup - best range, enough speed to stay out of the way, can deliver enough damage to kill. Not a good thing.

Also doesn't change the fact that the way the 'f' key works now is a pretty awkward way to go about it.

The fact that firing at nothing can accomplish the same thing isn't good, though. Bears a bit more thought - I am considering removing that mechanic altogether and giving energy weapons a slight boost across the board, but not settled on it either way.

After giving it a second thought, I have to agree - I imagined myself on the other end of the barrel (Dominator), and it sucked.
However, I am still looking to a better solution than increasing damage across the board, decreasing flux usage with higher flux being one of them.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on July 11, 2012, 03:20:56 PM
so Alex, why just change the Flux button insted of remove that option ?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 11, 2012, 03:45:52 PM
Most people really find no use for it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 11, 2012, 03:53:44 PM
so Alex, why just change the Flux button insted of remove that option ?

Well, it's discussed in more detail above, but the really short version is "it's awkward, very situational, and potentially bad". Mostly awkward, though. Stay tuned for further developments - may not happen immediately, but I don't expect just removing the button to be the end of it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sunfire on July 11, 2012, 03:58:06 PM
so Alex, why just change the Flux button insted of remove that option ?

Well, it's discussed in more detail above, but the really short version is "it's awkward, very situational, and potentially bad". Mostly awkward, though. Stay tuned for further developments - may not happen immediately, but I don't expect just removing the button to be the end of it.

I accidentally found it in the middle of a battle while flying a high tech ship
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 11, 2012, 04:59:56 PM
This is really the biggest reason I can see for changing things.  Hm.  One possibly interesting thought: what if you increased energy weapon damage & flux generation by, say, 25% across the board - and then had high flux levels reduce flux cost of energy weapons instead of increasing damage?  That would give some of the same feel of high flux = more firepower, keep the pretty glowing energy graphics for all ships, and totally remove any possible advantage to be had from artificially boosting your own flux levels.

I think that would combine fairly well with my HEF notion that naufrago linked to.  But it'd need a fair bit of balance testing.  On the other hand, just adding ship systems at all necessitates balance testing, so maybe now would be a good time to experiment?

At first blush, that seems like a very good idea. I'm not sure increasing the damage and flux costs is even necessary - just replacing the damage boost with a flux cost reduction might be enough.

One potential issue is it'll be harder to tell if you've got enough flux to fire certain weapons - like the Plasma Cannon or the AM Blaster... hmm.

I'm not sure changing the damage bonus to reducing the flux cost would be a good idea - a lot of the considerations of ship design revolve around flux balance and dissipation. Also the small energy weapons are fairly
light on damage - the boost to PD and tactical laser damage from flux is really essential as the current balance lies. Its a very large change and I don't really see the benefit from it.  :-\
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 12, 2012, 08:01:44 AM
I'm not sure changing the damage bonus to reducing the flux cost would be a good idea - a lot of the considerations of ship design revolve around flux balance and dissipation. Also the small energy weapons are fairly
light on damage - the boost to PD and tactical laser damage from flux is really essential as the current balance lies. Its a very large change and I don't really see the benefit from it.  :-\

That's why my original post suggested increasing damage & flux generation across the board to start with - essentially trying to sort of average in the existing damage bonus.  At low flux levels the guns would be deal more damage (at the cost of more flux); at medium flux, it'd be exactly the same as currently at medium flux, and at high flux they'd do less damage, but be cheaper to fire.

The benefit is that there'd no longer be any possible value to "gaming" your flux levels - assuming it was tuned right, there'd never be a situation in which it was cheaper to artificially boost flux and then fire, instead of just firing to start with.

Why is that a benefit?  See the entire previous discussion full of complaints about the raise-your-flux button going away.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Rymosrac on July 12, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
One potential issue is it'll be harder to tell if you've got enough flux to fire certain weapons - like the Plasma Cannon or the AM Blaster... hmm.

So make the weapons turn orange or purple or something on the weapons list when you have insufficient free flux to fire them, similar to having them turn red when ammunition depleted.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 12, 2012, 08:34:04 PM
I'm not sure changing the damage bonus to reducing the flux cost would be a good idea - a lot of the considerations of ship design revolve around flux balance and dissipation. Also the small energy weapons are fairly
light on damage - the boost to PD and tactical laser damage from flux is really essential as the current balance lies. Its a very large change and I don't really see the benefit from it.  :-\

That's why my original post suggested increasing damage & flux generation across the board to start with - essentially trying to sort of average in the existing damage bonus.  At low flux levels the guns would be deal more damage (at the cost of more flux); at medium flux, it'd be exactly the same as currently at medium flux, and at high flux they'd do less damage, but be cheaper to fire.

The benefit is that there'd no longer be any possible value to "gaming" your flux levels - assuming it was tuned right, there'd never be a situation in which it was cheaper to artificially boost flux and then fire, instead of just firing to start with.

Why is that a benefit?  See the entire previous discussion full of complaints about the raise-your-flux button going away.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just give energy weapons a flat +25% damage and leave all the flux unaltered (the current system doesn't change flux consumption, unless I'm missing something)? Thats probably even a little low - I know that I like to ride my energy ships at high flux by not venting when I'm going for the kill.

I'm just confused why the damage boost for flux needs to be removed at all. It adds an important and meaningful choice during the regular operation of high tech vessels: do I keep my flux high and blast away, possibly taking high damage on the hull or overloading, but possibly scoring a decisive kill? Or do I play it safe and retreat to vent - much safer but stalling on this vessel could mean the death of other ships in my fleet.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 14, 2012, 04:05:43 PM
Updated.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 14, 2012, 04:10:11 PM
Quote
Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units

Yes! My beautiful Phase Beam is even better!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: MidnightSun on July 14, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
Loving the changelog. The tweaks to the Tachyon Lance are fantastic; I think there'll be a lot more strategy in using them than with the current "nuke from orbit" usage. And of course, the phase ships :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 14, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
This version is not out yet - this is just a list of changes made/new features implemented so far in the development build.

Changes as of July 14, 2012

Ship AI:
  • Adjusted strafing/pursuit algorithm to help avoid a situation where two ships will circle each other ineffectively for a long time. This result in a significant AI quality improvement overall:
    • Better aim with forward-facing weapons
    • Better aim with guided *and* unguided missiles - in particular, AI frigates can now use Reaper torpedoes effectively
    • More aggresive engagements when appropriate
  • Improved tactical response to being kited
  • No longer tries to flee from frigates or fighters, since that generally doesn't ends well
  • Improved collision avoidance - ships should more reliably go around each other when their destinations cause them to cross paths

Yay, this will help fleet formation a lot.


Added Phase Cloaking:
  • Replaces shields on phase ships (right click to phase in/out)
  • Phased ships can be seen, but not hit
  • No flux dissipation, builds a percentage of base flux per second - can't stay phased indefinitely
  • Costs a percentage of base flux to activate
  • Ship overloads if the phase cloak maxes out the flux level
  • Can't unphase inside a solid object (but will overload)
  • Can't fire while phased
  • Three new phase ships: one cruiser and two frigates
  • See blog post for more details: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/07/09/the-evolution-of-phase-cloaking/

So basically this is an invulnerability shield?  Can Phase weapons damage ships phasing or can phase weapons fire while phased?  IS hardflux built up when phasing, and can soft flux be vented possibly?



Weapon/balance changes:
  • Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units
  • Phase Charge Launcher: renamed to "Proximity Charge Launcher", increased ammo to 30, increased launch speed, reduced rate of fire from 1/second to 1/3 seconds, reduced damage
  • Tachyon Lance: reduced range and damage by 50%. Increased EMP damage by 50%. No longer goes through fighters.

The charge launcher probably needs to work more like mines and to have a cheaper cost associated with it.  Second, does the lance really need to be nerfed?  It already costs 32 OP which is a lot and it cannot penetrate the shields of larger ships due to the soft flux, I rarely if ever use it anymore and this change won't help that.



Ship Systems:
  • Changed Fast Missile Racks to generate flux per use, drastically reduced cooldown

Miscellaneous:
  • Added per-system icons to in-combat ship status display
  • Missile engine glow will now gradually diminish a couple of seconds before it flames out, giving some warning that it's about to happen

Bugfixes:
  • Ship AI no longer tries to avoid an (impossible) collision with the transfer command shuttle pod
  • Fixed potential game freeze if two fleets with ships with no attack capacity whatsoever engaged in an autoresolved battle
  • Fixed bug where autofiring missile weapons didn't properly recognize when friendly fire is NOT a danger
  • Fixed bug where switching weapon groups quickly would sometimes cause the weapon arcs for the wrong group to be displayed



Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: minno on July 14, 2012, 05:06:40 PM
  • Fixed potential game freeze if two fleets with ships with no attack capacity whatsoever engaged in an autoresolved battle

So how do you handle it now?  Do you just end combat with no damage, or do you try to simulate who's the better rammer?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 14, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Interesting on the Tachyon lance - still long ranged and decent burst, but a switch from killing to knocking out every weapon/engine at once...

Will the AI know to 'spray' the beam over the whole exposed surface of a ship to knock out as many systems at once as possible or will it still try to find a hole in the armor, like other weapons? I should go check if the ion cannon sprays to knock out systems, I've never actually used it...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Shoat on July 14, 2012, 05:46:39 PM
Quote
Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units

Yes! My beautiful Phase Beam is even better!


100 additional units of purple on the screen. YES.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gaizokubanou on July 14, 2012, 07:40:20 PM
If I'm understanding the current phase ship under solid object rule, then technically it's a feasible tactic as a non-phase ship to just move through a phase ship to overload it, right?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 14, 2012, 07:54:43 PM
  • Fixed potential game freeze if two fleets with ships with no attack capacity whatsoever engaged in an autoresolved battle

So how do you handle it now?  Do you just end combat with no damage, or do you try to simulate who's the better rammer?

No ramming simulation, that would be silly :) They just both successfully retreat.

Interesting on the Tachyon lance - still long ranged and decent burst, but a switch from killing to knocking out every weapon/engine at once...

Will the AI know to 'spray' the beam over the whole exposed surface of a ship to knock out as many systems at once as possible or will it still try to find a hole in the armor, like other weapons? I should go check if the ion cannon sprays to knock out systems, I've never actually used it...

In theory, no - but if the lance is in a turret, the AI generally doesn't go for such niceties as keeping the ship from turning to ensure the turret hits the same spot - so, let's go with "yes" in regard to spraying.

If I'm understanding the current phase ship under solid object rule, then technically it's a feasible tactic as a non-phase ship to just move through a phase ship to overload it, right?

Yeah - if you prevent it from phasing in, it'll overload - while still phased. Between phase ships generally being pretty fast, and the forces pushing the ship trying to do so away from the phase ship's normal space shadow, I wouldn't expect doing this to be easy.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on July 14, 2012, 08:59:17 PM
Can a phased ship pass through another phased ship? I mean, they are both using the same technology right? Aren't they also going into the same "phase space" thing?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Nooblies on July 14, 2012, 10:31:48 PM
Missiles now give warning when about to go free for all, friendly pilums won't be as scary to be around now.

Also, no more friendly harpoon death for me! (has happened to me more times than you'd think)

Nice change.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 14, 2012, 11:45:10 PM
Starfarer, KSP, and Blockade Runner are all the same update schedule and the wait has been brutal.  I can only imagine the joyous day when all three games patch simultaneously, overflowing with new content.  Ah, yes, I can picture it now.

Ship systems are making me salivate.  I really hope they're plenty moddable.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psycho Society on July 15, 2012, 03:02:51 AM
It'll be a good update. Mix things up a bit. Can you imagine a hound with a flare launcher? Things gonna be dodging and weaving and even salamanders won't be able to take it out of the action. Those things are gonna tear into ships like ravening hyenas. It looks like the AI update will change the game a lot too. I am concerned though if a lone skirmish frigate like the hound or wolf no longer runs from other frigates, they'll be surrounded and crushed. Will this not be the case?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 15, 2012, 03:05:44 AM
It'll be a good update. Mix things up a bit. Can you imagine a hound with a flare launcher? Things gonna be dodging and weaving and even salamanders won't be able to take it out of the action. Those things are gonna tear into ships like ravening hyenas.
That'll (hopefully) be balanced out by the update to AI that makes them more tactical when dealing with being kited.

I never used Salamanders to begin with. I just took them down with weapons, because they tend to make mistakes and get caught out quite easily. Pulse lasers and such are the main dealers of death here.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 15, 2012, 03:32:09 AM
not sure about the Tach Lance change...it was already very hard to use against anything bigger than a destroyer(and even some destroyers were problematic)
 maybe change it to deal hard flux since its basically pulse weapon not a true beam
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 15, 2012, 04:14:22 AM
You'd be surprised when if i told you how burst pd arrays are very mean towards ships with no shields. They tear up armor like nobodys business. Especially the heavy burst laser, which is flux efficient too. :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 15, 2012, 06:53:50 AM
hmmm whats YaHo? :)
i use burst PDs on my Paragon they can be quite nasty thats true
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 15, 2012, 07:28:30 AM
hmmm whats YaHo? :)
i use burst PDs on my Paragon they can be quite nasty thats true

I don't know? My phone can be very awkward and strange at times -_-

The word is supposed to be how, BTW
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 15, 2012, 07:37:27 AM
Can a phased ship pass through another phased ship? I mean, they are both using the same technology right? Aren't they also going into the same "phase space" thing?

They can - p-space physics and n-space physics are not the same :)


I am concerned though if a lone skirmish frigate like the hound or wolf no longer runs from other frigates, they'll be surrounded and crushed. Will this not be the case?

Well, it doesn't mean that it won't back off tactically - this just puts an end to the "turn around and try to run" behavior, which is ok vs slower ships - but vs frigates and fighters just gets it shot up, with the "bonus" of not being able to fire back because it's turned away.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 15, 2012, 12:35:20 PM
  • Three new phase ships: one cruiser and two frigates
I figured any phase ship would almost certainally have a strike loadout, and since ships use strike tactics rely heavily on speed, a cruiser class phase ship is surprising to me.

Weapon/balance changes:
  • Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units
  • Phase Charge Launcher: renamed to "Proximity Charge Launcher", increased ammo to 30, increased launch speed, reduced rate of fire from 1/second to 1/3 seconds, reduced damage
Bummer. I was hopping that the phase weapons would increase the flux of a ship in phase. Oh well.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on July 15, 2012, 01:28:48 PM
  • Three new phase ships: one cruiser and two frigates
I figured any phase ship would almost certainally have a strike loadout, and since ships use strike tactics rely heavily on speed, a cruiser class phase ship is surprising to me.

Weapon/balance changes:
  • Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units
  • Phase Charge Launcher: renamed to "Proximity Charge Launcher", increased ammo to 30, increased launch speed, reduced rate of fire from 1/second to 1/3 seconds, reduced damage
Bummer. I was hopping that the phase weapons would increase the flux of a ship in phase. Oh well.


If you can close the distance from a targets maximum range to your strike range, whilst remaining totally invulnerable, you do not need to rely upon speed, as long as your invulnerability lasts long enough to close the gap. Strike craft rely on speed as it allows them to avoid damage that would overwhelm a shield system of their size class. Phasing offers an alternative damage avoidance mechanic.[/list][/list]
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psycho Society on July 15, 2012, 01:38:31 PM
This just puts an end to the "turn around and try to run" behavior, which is ok vs slower ships - but vs frigates and fighters just gets it shot up, with the "bonus" of not being able to fire back because it's turned away.



Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 15, 2012, 03:28:53 PM
Weapon/balance changes:
  • Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units
  • Phase Charge Launcher: renamed to "Proximity Charge Launcher", increased ammo to 30, increased launch speed, reduced rate of fire from 1/second to 1/3 seconds, reduced damage
Bummer. I was hopping that the phase weapons would increase the flux of a ship in phase. Oh well.

Yeah... we actually considered something like that, and it's also come up as a suggestion a few times. My current thinking on it is it would bring the mechanics of phasing closer to the mechanics of shields (anti-phase would be analogous to kinetic), and I don't think that's desirable. My preference is to keep phase mechanics more unique.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on July 15, 2012, 04:23:21 PM
Weapon/balance changes:
  • Phase Beam: increased range by 100 units
  • Phase Charge Launcher: renamed to "Proximity Charge Launcher", increased ammo to 30, increased launch speed, reduced rate of fire from 1/second to 1/3 seconds, reduced damage
Bummer. I was hopping that the phase weapons would increase the flux of a ship in phase. Oh well.

Yeah... we actually considered something like that, and it's also come up as a suggestion a few times. My current thinking on it is it would bring the mechanics of phasing closer to the mechanics of shields (anti-phase would be analogous to kinetic), and I don't think that's desirable. My preference is to keep phase mechanics more unique.

What about the idea that phase weapons are really high flux weapons (impractical for normal ships) BUT they are the only weapons that can be fired by ships in phase?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 15, 2012, 04:28:28 PM
 That sorta contradicts the whole idea that the flux is the limiting factor for ships in phase.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 15, 2012, 04:42:04 PM
If you can close the distance from a targets maximum range to your strike range, whilst remaining totally invulnerable, you do not need to rely upon speed, as long as your invulnerability lasts long enough to close the gap.
Speed doesn't just help you get in to range, it also helps you get away after you've dealt your damage. I imagine that just like shields, it will take a moment for your ship to entirely enter phase space.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on July 15, 2012, 07:55:31 PM
Alex, regarding Phase Cloaking, you've could create Predator-like (or Starcraft 1 like) Space Disruption Effect instead of Phase Coils, that would be more awesome and realistic. But its yours decision and I respect it :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 15, 2012, 08:33:07 PM
Alex, regarding Phase Cloaking, you've could create Predator-like (or Starcraft 1 like) Space Disruption Effect instead of Phase Coils, that would be more awesome and realistic. But its yours decision and I respect it :)

If we're talking about the visuals, I really like how the phase coils came out. Haven't seen anything similar, either - where the "spatial distortion" thing has been done, ahem, once or twice. But, of course, it's a matter of taste, and there's no arguing about taste :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on July 16, 2012, 12:36:55 AM
If we're talking about the visuals, I really like how the phase coils came out. Haven't seen anything similar, either - where the "spatial distortion" thing has been done, ahem, once or twice. But, of course, it's a matter of taste, and there's no arguing about taste :)
From looks of screen shots Phase Coils reveal too much of ships location (well if it will have 10% opacity it will be hardly detectable too), while if it will be "spatial distortion", player must be careful and watch background in order to detect invisible ship. Well it's Innovation (Phase Cloak) vs Classics (Optical Cloak), I will be glad if both of them will be implemented :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on July 16, 2012, 12:52:28 AM
the blog says it's supposed to be visible....
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 16, 2012, 02:38:38 AM
the blog says it's supposed to be visible....

They are!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: NONOCE on July 16, 2012, 03:12:14 AM
Ah, lances were completly overpowered.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: PCCL on July 16, 2012, 03:12:40 AM
the blog says it's supposed to be visible....

They are!
ya, I know.

that was a response to warstalker's post wanting the phase ships to be less visible
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 16, 2012, 04:28:37 AM
Ah, lances were completly overpowered.
hmmm not really they were overpowered against small ships and anything without shields....but cruisers and bigger will just laugh at your feeble attempts to break their shields and just went the flux before you fire again
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 16, 2012, 04:30:40 AM
But they where damn annoying against battelships since it forced them to use shields or get blasted by EMP and damage, and that in turn cause them to travel in a lot slower speeds.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 16, 2012, 06:30:37 AM
Im not so sure about the tachyon lance nerf, i would have made it either 50% range or 50% damage, but both im not sure about. I haven't really though this through like alex must have (and like i usually do with my suggestions) so i guess i'll just wait and see how they play in the patch. I like all the other changes, maybe the "new" Proximity Charge Launcher could have a frigate sized explosion radius or something to make it usefull.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 16, 2012, 08:41:26 AM
Ah, lances were completly overpowered.
hmmm not really they were overpowered against small ships and anything without shields....but cruisers and bigger will just laugh at your feeble attempts to break their shields and just went the flux before you fire again
Im not so sure about the tachyon lance nerf, i would have made it either 50% range or 50% damage, but both im not sure about. I haven't really though this through like alex must have (and like i usually do with my suggestions) so i guess i'll just wait and see how they play in the patch. I like all the other changes, maybe the "new" Proximity Charge Launcher could have a frigate sized explosion radius or something to make it usefull.

The problem with the lance is that in sufficient numbers - say, 2-4 capital ships equipped with it - it could snipe capital ships from across the map, shields or no shields. A few wings Wasps worked great for spotting and capturing, and could not be countered by fighters or frigates - even if seriously outnumbered - due to lance support. Even early in the battle, when only one capital ship was deployed.

With the range reduction, it's no longer an overpowering support weapon in the early stages - you need to take a sensor array or two - crucially, without lance support - before it really comes into its own. The damage reduction is to prevent it from being overpowering when it does get the range boost - it's intended as a support for ships fighting in the front lines, not something that can take ships out straight up.

Even with the changes, the lance still seems a bit too good in testing. I don't think this'll be the final incarnation of it - perhaps not even for 0.53a - but we'll see.

If we're talking about the visuals, I really like how the phase coils came out. Haven't seen anything similar, either - where the "spatial distortion" thing has been done, ahem, once or twice. But, of course, it's a matter of taste, and there's no arguing about taste :)
From looks of screen shots Phase Coils reveal too much of ships location (well if it will have 10% opacity it will be hardly detectable too), while if it will be "spatial distortion", player must be careful and watch background in order to detect invisible ship. Well it's Innovation (Phase Cloak) vs Classics (Optical Cloak), I will be glad if both of them will be implemented :)

Well, to be fair, you're not *supposed* to have any trouble seeing a phased ship :) I hear what you're saying, though. More neat stuff (such as an optical cloak) is always nice, but have to draw the line somewhere, or things will never get finished. That's probably the hardest part - deciding what not to do - and also one of the most important.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 16, 2012, 08:54:08 AM
Something about Phase Charges:
I don't know how many of you guys tried it, and realised how powerful it is as a weapon.

In this scenario, I use Dominator armed with three hardpointed Phase Charge Launchers. Now, I know it is a heavy cruiser, but truth to be told, any ship can make it, provided it has enough Medium Missile slots (2 is good, 3 is perfect). Why? Because you will take almost no damage whatsoever, as I shall demonstrate.
1. http://i47.tinypic.com/9td7nr.png (http://i47.tinypic.com/9td7nr.png)
Expanded missile rack helps a lot, so you can spam charges. As I said before, you can take 0 capacitors/vents, it doesn't matter really, I did, because it was a test, and I didn't know yet.

Now, let's start with entire simulation fighter fleet: (note: I screen'd at wrong moment, and didn't catch selecting fighters, you can see them on the next one, in the upper left corner)
http://i45.tinypic.com/vqhav5.png (http://i45.tinypic.com/vqhav5.png)

The tactic is to turn your ship from one side to another, while shooting Phase Charges (they are on alternating fire):
2. http://i46.tinypic.com/30nexc2.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/30nexc2.png)
3. http://i47.tinypic.com/1rx24w.png (http://i47.tinypic.com/1rx24w.png)
On this one you can see that Gladiuses are the only ones that will ever hit you, because they have biggest range and flank you from both sides. Nevertheless, they will be ripped to pieces in just a moment:
4. http://i46.tinypic.com/20t33x1.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/20t33x1.png)
5. http://i46.tinypic.com/zsapi.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/zsapi.png)

One Phase Charge is enough to take down entire Talon wing, most of the time. When you shoot at least two of them at a time... fighters just don't stand a chance.

So I thought, let's see how this works out in a real fight - my Dominator(same setup as before) versus simulation Dominator:
1. http://i46.tinypic.com/2rdf6h5.png (http://i46.tinypic.com/2rdf6h5.png)
Just shoot in his general direction, lead the target, bring up your shields from time to time so that he doesn't destroy your missile mounts, and watch him die.
2. http://i47.tinypic.com/2hfl6cp.png (http://i47.tinypic.com/2hfl6cp.png)

And that's it. He doesn't even last a minute. No overloads, no hull damage, no visible armor damage.

All this might be useless after the patch, as I cannot easily predict how this weapon will work after changes. But still, for fun ;)
And maybe it will help Alex in future balance, et cetera.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 16, 2012, 09:11:28 AM
The problem with the lance is that in sufficient numbers - say, 2-4 capital ships equipped with it - it could snipe capital ships from across the map, shields or no shields. A few wings Wasps worked great for spotting and capturing, and could not be countered by fighters or frigates - even if seriously outnumbered - due to lance support. Even early in the battle, when only one capital ship was deployed.

With the range reduction, it's no longer an overpowering support weapon in the early stages - you need to take a sensor array or two - crucially, without lance support - before it really comes into its own. The damage reduction is to prevent it from being overpowering when it does get the range boost - it's intended as a support for ships fighting in the front lines, not something that can take ships out straight up.

Even with the changes, the lance still seems a bit too good in testing. I don't think this'll be the final incarnation of it - perhaps not even for 0.53a - but we'll see.
yeah i agree with the range reduction 5k was just ridiculous...
its just that if you have 2-4 caps what CAN stand in your way? i mean they only difference will be that you have to get in range with your ships so it takes 2 minutes longer....last game i had 2 Onslaughts supported by 2 medusas and there was just nothing that would last longer than few seconds if it made a mistake got too close....
now i have a paragon armed with 3 tachs and one plasma cannon(havent found another TL yet) and i actually feel it takes longer to kill many larger ships....its true that i can just slaughter anything small....
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on July 16, 2012, 11:03:31 AM
Well, to be fair, you're not *supposed* to have any trouble seeing a phased ship :)
I think we started to misunderstand science fiction terminology. Originally:
Phased Out Ship - can be seen as distorted half-transparent shadow, but can't be damaged due the fact because it's in another dimension or sub-dimension. It also can't damage other ships because phased out ship is... in another dimension.
Optically Cloaked Ship - can be barely seen as transparent distortion, it can be damaged by incoming fire, including random one. Can ship fire or not in cloaked state is rather depends from quality of cloaking device, as well as amount of spatial distortion caused by ship.
Phase Cloaked Ship - same as phased out ship, but also cloaked. Almost Fatal Combination. It's not the limit for it, it can be advanced further using M-Theory and M-Physics, but we will pass on this one :P

I hear what you're saying, though. More neat stuff (such as an optical cloak) is always nice
Sure, C&C: Tiberium Dawn & Predator Movie showed us how cool should look effect of cloaking device :)

but have to draw the line somewhere, or things will never get finished. That's probably the hardest part - deciding what not to do - and also one of the most important.
Oh come on! You have all time in universe, and it's about 6 billion years, and within next 40 years there will be possibility for anybody to become immortal :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 16, 2012, 11:14:43 AM
Oh come on! You have all time in universe, and it's about 6 billion years, and within next 40 years there will be possibility for anybody to become immortal :D


Yeah, as if -_-
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 16, 2012, 11:49:51 AM
Oh come on! You have all time in universe, and it's about 6 billion years, and within next 40 years there will be possibility for anybody to become immortal :D


Yeah, as if -_-
No, he's right. Look at how far we've gone in ten years. By next year it's supposed we'll have octo core Graphite processor based phones with self healing screens. It's hard for anyone to say where we'll be but I'm damn sure the people who are about as old as me and you may never die.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 16, 2012, 12:03:08 PM
I think people are getting too caught up in terminology. "Phase Cloak," in Starfarer, is visible but untouchable.

Kind of weird when you realize that light is reflecting off the ship to make it visible, but lasers don't do anything... but this is science fiction. Not a big deal. I prefer this interesting new spin on a "subterfuge" combat mechanic than the all-too-overdone traditional "invisibility cloak" setup that populates most sci-fi universes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kregoth on July 16, 2012, 12:20:24 PM
The problem with the lance is that in sufficient numbers - say, 2-4 capital ships equipped with it - it could snipe capital ships from across the map, shields or no shields. A few wings Wasps worked great for spotting and capturing, and could not be countered by fighters or frigates - even if seriously outnumbered - due to lance support. Even early in the battle, when only one capital ship was deployed.

With the range reduction, it's no longer an overpowering support weapon in the early stages - you need to take a sensor array or two - crucially, without lance support - before it really comes into its own. The damage reduction is to prevent it from being overpowering when it does get the range boost - it's intended as a support for ships fighting in the front lines, not something that can take ships out straight up.

Even with the changes, the lance still seems a bit too good in testing. I don't think this'll be the final incarnation of it - perhaps not even for 0.53a - but we'll see.

I have always viewed the Lance as a support weapon due to it's range, I think you should keep the range but instead of doing any damage it should be straight up EM damage. This would give the Lance a distinct role, a long range laser meant for helping front line fighters by disabling ship systems, This would also make the Lance useless against shields, but very handy when hitting heavily armed targets. Oh and it shouldn't be capable of hitting fighters.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 16, 2012, 12:45:25 PM
I have always viewed the Lance as a support weapon due to it's range, I think you should keep the range but instead of doing any damage it should be straight up EM damage. This would give the Lance a distinct role, a long range laser meant for helping front line fighters by disabling ship systems, This would also make the Lance useless against shields, but very handy when hitting heavily armed targets. Oh and it shouldn't be capable of hitting fighters.

You know, I actually considered these very two ideas :) Pure EMP damage for the lance could work - just not sure that it *feels* right for it to do no lasting damage at all. Still, the damage changes move it towards that, and it may move further in that direction still.

As far as not hitting fighters: Balance-wise, it might be a workable solution - but it's one more thing to explain, and one more thing to be confused by as a new player (and the AI would be confused by it too). I'd rather look for solutions that don't create exceptions to rules, first.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 16, 2012, 01:06:04 PM
I like how nobody seems to notice my diagnostic post about Phase Charge Launcher and it's massive power :) JK.

On tachyon lance - it seems to me that EMP-only damage in anything but Salamanders is rubbish, because of shields. With such range, no other weapons will be capable of taking the shields down, so the Lance will do nothing.

The only chance is that your fighters will help, but that means you have to deploy Broadswords specifically for this purpose.

And it definitely should hit fighters, it would be simply stupid if it didn't. Reasonable, maybe, for balance, but really?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 16, 2012, 01:19:34 PM
I like how nobody seems to notice my diagnostic post about Phase Charge Launcher and it's massive power :) JK.

Oh, I noticed :) I was wondering how long it'd take someone to notice how ridiculously, brokenly overpowered the Phase Charge Launcher is... but that "Phase" bit in the name did wonders for throwing the scent off the trail.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 16, 2012, 01:22:38 PM
I have now started to build an entire fleet based on this
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 16, 2012, 02:13:29 PM
I have now started to build an entire fleet based on this

On the sidenote, I actually did the same test with Vigilance-class frigate, armed with one Phase Charge Launcher - it required much more planning as to where shoot charges, but it was still capable of taking down entire simulation fighter fleet :>
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psycho Society on July 16, 2012, 02:59:22 PM
The reason phase ships aren't invisible is because that would be too severe a disruption for game balance. Making them partially invisible would only force the player to constantly pause and scan the screen for phase cloaked ships, which would be frustrating as hell and wouldn't add a single thing to the game. What we have now is the best option.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on July 16, 2012, 07:15:19 PM
That sorta contradicts the whole idea that the flux is the limiting factor for ships in phase.

I dont think so. If you choose to use those weapons while in phase you are invincible but you reach your flux limit much faster. So you can be in phase longer which not attacking, or attack but stay phased shorter.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Okim on July 17, 2012, 04:51:44 AM
I remember the fun i and my brother had when one of us was flying an Ilwrathi dragon in star control... Especially when you both can`t see that cloaked vessel.

Prediction fire based on asteroids changing their trajectory, incidental collisions with planets, fire breath fired on deduction based on zoom level - oh man, it was so damn cool! :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intothewildblueyonder on July 17, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
What happens if a ship with launch bays phases with fighters on-board?
   - I know this has been mentioned but will there be a way for you to tell fighters to say on board until released (This could be done with ship systems, but then you lose a different ship system)

I didn't quite understand: does the phase ability replace shield and a ship system; or if a ship can phase can it have a ship system as well, e.g. ship can phase and have drones or ship can phase and has burn drive

And imagine escaping with phase ships will not be too challenging will this be an issue for gameplay (one side can escape too easily; can lead to such things as an impossible to catch fleet or impossible to finish off fleet)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: YAZF on July 17, 2012, 09:06:22 PM
I'm guessing ships with phase tech don't have flight decks or drones.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 17, 2012, 09:27:44 PM
I remember the fun i and my brother had when one of us was flying an Ilwrathi dragon in star control... Especially when you both can`t see that cloaked vessel.

Prediction fire based on asteroids changing their trajectory, incidental collisions with planets, fire breath fired on deduction based on zoom level - oh man, it was so damn cool! :)

I remember playing it with friends. Good times.

Although, with the way cloak worked, you could always tell exactly where the other ship was - since the screen centered on the midpoint between the two ships. Something I didn't know for the longest time - if you pressed the fire button while cloaked, the Ilwrath would instantly turn to point towards the enemy right before coming out it.

I didn't quite understand: does the phase ability replace shield and a ship system; or if a ship can phase can it have a ship system as well, e.g. ship can phase and have drones or ship can phase and has burn drive

Phase cloak replaces the shield, and you use right-click to turn it on and off. The ship still has a system, though.

What happens if a ship with launch bays phases with fighters on-board?
   - I know this has been mentioned but will there be a way for you to tell fighters to say on board until released (This could be done with ship systems, but then you lose a different ship system)
I'm guessing ships with phase tech don't have flight decks or drones.

Yep. Technically, you could specify for a phase ship to have decks or drones, but it wouldn't work very well - rather, it would just ignore the phase cloak and its status entirely. None of the stock phase ships have this issue (i.e., they don't have drones or flight decks).

Although, it'd probably look ok - since fighters/drones fade in/out while taking off/landing, they should look fine interacting with a phased ship. Lore-wise, you could say that a phase carrier has the tech to pull fighters into phase with it as they come in for a landing, or some such.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 17, 2012, 11:36:41 PM

The problem with the lance is that in sufficient numbers - say, 2-4 capital ships equipped with it - it could snipe capital ships from across the map, shields or no shields.

Isn't this more an AI problem, IE that they don't know to arm their shields versus threats with longer ranged weapons?


Also Alex, you need to understand it costs 32 OP, that's a LOT and it's really only useful AS support.  It's an awful close-range weapon because it cannot penetrate shields on larger ships.  If you're testing only versus how the AI responds or how quickly it kills smaller ships than I think it needs testing in other areas as even with 4 lances I couldn't really get past an onslaught's shielding.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 18, 2012, 05:35:32 AM

The problem with the lance is that in sufficient numbers - say, 2-4 capital ships equipped with it - it could snipe capital ships from across the map, shields or no shields.

Isn't this more an AI problem, IE that they don't know to arm their shields versus threats with longer ranged weapons?


Also Alex, you need to understand it costs 32 OP, that's a LOT and it's really only useful AS support.  It's an awful close-range weapon because it cannot penetrate shields on larger ships.  If you're testing only versus how the AI responds or how quickly it kills smaller ships than I think it needs testing in other areas as even with 4 lances I couldn't really get past an onslaught's shielding.

Yeah if the Lance keeps its 32 OP and gets this big nerf, im never going to use it again.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: heskey30 on July 18, 2012, 07:50:59 AM
Well that's the point, isn't it?

If it isn't so overpowered that you feel like you have to use it to get an optimal build... well that is optimal I'd say. And it isn't a fun enough weapon (just point and smite) to play just for fun. With this change, it still does have it's uses.

Suggestion, though: if you want it to be less powerful against fighters and frigates, alex, try making it "vibrate". Like inaccuracy except for beams, so every frame it is at a different angle in a certain arc. It might look cool too... it would also get emp damage all across a bigger enemy ship. You would have to balance it differently then of course... but it might be worth a try.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on July 18, 2012, 07:51:37 AM
I'm going to have to agree with alex's decision with the tachyon lance nerf. You don't seem to realize how powerful range is as a stat. I'll refer you to this post I made (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3387.msg51353#msg51353) to explain why range is powerful and why the tachyon lance is as powerful as it is.

At 2500 range, it still has twice the range of the next longest range weapon, the HIL. Combined with the ITU, that's 3750, which can be further increased by taking sensor beacons. That still allows you to bombard from the back lines without fear of retaliation. With the nerf, you won't be able to snipe fighters from across the map, but you won't notice the range nerf as much as you might think.

However, I think you're most concerned about the 50% damage nerf. That's also a non-issue. At 50% damage, the Tachyon lance will deal at least 750 damage per shot. That's still enough to punch holes in armor and put a serious dent in the hull of any ship (it deals as much or more damage per shot than almost every other large weapon). It maintains its strong burst potential without being overpoweredly so. It will still be useful as a support weapon, dealing heavy damage at range to frigates and cruisers alike and crippling their weapons and engines, but won't be as much use on its own because it's not great at breaking shields.

If you're concerned about its dps being 100 and flux being 350/s, you have to realize that you must sacrifice SOMETHING for the extreme range of the weapon. Still, a drop to 30 OP to be inline with the Plasma cannon may not be unwarranted, but it's really not that big of a deal.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dx on July 18, 2012, 08:01:32 AM
I have always viewed the Lance as a support weapon due to it's range, I think you should keep the range but instead of doing any damage it should be straight up EM damage. This would give the Lance a distinct role, a long range laser meant for helping front line fighters by disabling ship systems, This would also make the Lance useless against shields, but very handy when hitting heavily armed targets. Oh and it shouldn't be capable of hitting fighters.

You know, I actually considered these very two ideas :) Pure EMP damage for the lance could work - just not sure that it *feels* right for it to do no lasting damage at all. Still, the damage changes move it towards that, and it may move further in that direction still.

As far as not hitting fighters: Balance-wise, it might be a workable solution - but it's one more thing to explain, and one more thing to be confused by as a new player (and the AI would be confused by it too). I'd rather look for solutions that don't create exceptions to rules, first.


And how about add new weapon - Long Range Ion Cannon, EMP damage only slow moving electro-sparky ball. It will extend support role, will not hit frigs and fighters, do not mess up Lance's role.

Now there is only two truly Long Range Weapon in game - Lance and Pilum. Is it enough?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dx on July 18, 2012, 08:13:38 AM
Lore-wise, you could say that a phase carrier has the tech to pull fighters into phase with it as they come in for a landing, or some such.
Why then they can not push out of phase Big Fat Torpedo? 8)))
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 18, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Lore-wise, you could say that a phase carrier has the tech to pull fighters into phase with it as they come in for a landing, or some such.
Why then they can not push out of phase Big Fat Torpedo? 8)))
EW package aboard the torpedo scrambling its signature?
could make up an interesting hull mod enabling your torpedoes to phase out for a limited time though but forcing them to phase back in certain distance from enemy target
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dx on July 18, 2012, 08:56:27 AM
could make up an interesting hull mod enabling your torpedoes to phase out for a limited time though but forcing them to phase back in certain distance from enemy target
It is a system, not hull mod 8) Torpedo, that cannot be DP'ed, I like it 8)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 18, 2012, 09:04:51 AM
Oh cool, phase ships are now in!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 18, 2012, 12:32:44 PM
Isn't this more an AI problem, IE that they don't know to arm their shields versus threats with longer ranged weapons?

They do now, actually - that was one of the first things I fixed when taking a closer look at the lance.

Yeah if the Lance keeps its 32 OP and gets this big nerf, im never going to use it again.

Your mistake, I believe :) I think it's still rather overpowered, just down from the "insanely overpowered" levels it was at before. Given a 32 OP cost, this may be ok. Also: it's pretty useful at close range, even more so now - any ship taking a lance hit on the armor is going to be crippled quickly, with many weapons being disabled almost immediately - *and*, due to the high effective DPS, the armor damage is quite impressive. It's also quite good against fighters.

So, to recap: excellent anti-armor, best range in the game - by far - for a direct-fire weapon, great in an anti-fighter role, massive EMP damage, perfect accuracy. Poor vs shields, poor dps, high OP cost.

I'm not going to claim that it's perfectly balanced, but the above sounds pretty good to me.

Lore-wise, you could say that a phase carrier has the tech to pull fighters into phase with it as they come in for a landing, or some such.
Why then they can not push out of phase Big Fat Torpedo? 8)))

Hah! Good point there. Well, I was just making up a rationalization for a mod that might do this - as of now, as I mentioned, these aren't in the base game. If they show up there, I'm sure I'll come up with something more solid to rationalize this away :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 18, 2012, 01:07:38 PM
...Now I want to see phasing torpedo bombers.  I'll have to mod some in come next version.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 18, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Lore-wise, you could say that a phase carrier has the tech to pull fighters into phase with it as they come in for a landing, or some such.
Why then they can not push out of phase Big Fat Torpedo? 8)))
Hah! Good point there. Well, I was just making up a rationalization for a mod that might do this - as of now, as I mentioned, these aren't in the base game. If they show up there, I'm sure I'll come up with something more solid to rationalize this away :)
Wouldn't it be up to the modders to come up with some rationalization?

As far as the Lance goes, I think I might actually start using it. For me, it took most of the fun out of the game. The Tachyon Lance would blow the enemy ships up before any of my other weapons could get in to range, and well before any of theirs did.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 18, 2012, 03:18:17 PM
Wouldn't it be up to the modders to come up with some rationalization?
Srsly.

Maybe the fighters are big enough to carry some sort of phasing equipment, but weapons wouldn't be? Or expensive enough? I dunno....   Reaching, haha.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: intothewildblueyonder on July 18, 2012, 03:42:59 PM
This is declassified top secret information [some parts have been omitted or censored for security purposes] on the systems used in a dimensional shifting, that is from what can be called normal-space (n-space) to what is known as phase-space (p-space), ships, and the method they use to retrieval and launch ships, with additional information on attempts to utilize this system for weapons use.

Technical definitions and explanation:
[:) censored for you safety :)]

As has become known, due to leak from the development team who are responsible for the design and use of phase ships (DTWARDUPS) headed by acme launch experimentation of xanadu, phase ships do exist and they can retrieve and launch fighters or drones while the carrier ship remains in phase space. There has been much worry over how these ships would upset the current balance of power in how our defense fleets will be able to cope with assaults performed by phase ships, who would seem capable of remaining phased while launching weapons.

DTWARDUPS has revealed that this highly unlikely as the current mechanics of a phase ship phasing in a non-phased object a threshold of engine capability, mass, control, but most importantly [censored for you safety   8):-X) 8)] it is for this reason that there are no known feasible means of making a phase state transfer capable weapon
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 18, 2012, 03:56:55 PM
I guess i have to test the Lance to determine if its worth the 32 OP.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 19, 2012, 12:09:22 AM
well i guess is ship is big enough to be a carrier it could carry a few spare phase-field generators that can project small phase-field at some range from the ship....the smaller the object the bigger could be the range i.e. fighters can only be phased when they dock with the ship to allow docking but torps could be phased at some distance from the ship but since shells from guns are too fast and too numerous you cannot phase out nor phase IN those
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 19, 2012, 03:36:31 AM
I'm not sure why weapon buffs/nerfs are even under debate.  If you don't like it a certain way, go into weapon_data.csv and change them to whatever you want.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 19, 2012, 07:36:58 AM
Technical definitions and explanation:
[:) censored for you safety :)]
Aw, but being mind !@#$ed by physics is the best part

totally off topic but has anyone else noted that Google search has a better spell checker than Google chrome
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 19, 2012, 08:05:34 AM
I'm not sure why weapon buffs/nerfs are even under debate.  If you don't like it a certain way, go into weapon_data.csv and change them to whatever you want.
The base game should always have a modicum of balance. I mean, otherwise we might as well just be given a blank csv or one where every value is set to 1 to fill in whatever we want.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 19, 2012, 08:49:46 AM
Let's not be dramatic here, we're talking one weapon getting a range and damage nerf.  Playtest the change, report back.  These changes shouldn't be contested prior to being made in an alpha build.  And we can do without snotty, "Fine, then I just won't use it!" remarks.

Again, this is alpha.  The game may change drastically between patches and testers are expected to cope with it professionally.  If something is nerfed or buffed too severely, it will certainly be reflected in playtesting and fixed.  What's especially nice about the .csv file is that if you personally don't like a change, you can simply change it back.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: sdmike1 on July 19, 2012, 09:36:17 AM
Let's not be dramatic here, we're talking one weapon getting a range and damage nerf.  Playtest the change, report back.  These changes shouldn't be contested prior to being made in an alpha build.  And we can do without snotty, "Fine, then I just won't use it!" remarks.

Again, this is alpha.  The game may change drastically between patches and testers are expected to cope with it professionally.  If something is nerfed or buffed too severely, it will certainly be reflected in playtesting and fixed.  What's especially nice about the .csv file is that if you personally don't like a change, you can simply change it back.
I second this motion.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on July 19, 2012, 10:10:46 AM
Let's not be dramatic here, we're talking one weapon getting a range and damage nerf.  Playtest the change, report back.  These changes shouldn't be contested prior to being made in an alpha build.  And we can do without snotty, "Fine, then I just won't use it!" remarks.

Again, this is alpha.  The game may change drastically between patches and testers are expected to cope with it professionally.  If something is nerfed or buffed too severely, it will certainly be reflected in playtesting and fixed.  What's especially nice about the .csv file is that if you personally don't like a change, you can simply change it back.
I second this motion.

I agree, unless you can provide enough proof to justify a claim. Knee-jerk reactions and hyperbole need not apply.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 19, 2012, 10:39:27 AM
Again, this is alpha.  The game may change drastically between patches and testers are expected to cope with it professionally.  If something is nerfed or buffed too severely, it will certainly be reflected in playtesting and fixed.  What's especially nice about the .csv file is that if you personally don't like a change, you can simply change it back.
and that can be a problem you shouldnt do any drastic changes if it doesnt include adding new stuff....many devs take the change too far so instead of making it balanced they break it again the other way round
but i dont think that will be a problem here
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 19, 2012, 11:05:09 AM
Again, this is alpha.  The game may change drastically between patches and testers are expected to cope with it professionally.  If something is nerfed or buffed too severely, it will certainly be reflected in playtesting and fixed.  What's especially nice about the .csv file is that if you personally don't like a change, you can simply change it back.
and that can be a problem you shouldnt do any drastic changes if it doesnt include adding new stuff
Disagree. Any change to the game doesn't need to come with added features. And, weapon balance should absolutely be contested while in alpha. A game's alpha and beta phases are the time to be arguing over those stats. While I do agree with the upcoming Tachyon Lance nerf, if I didn't I would totally be arguing right now. Of course, the keyword there is arguing, not whining. If you disagree with the change, give your reasons and suggest other possible changes or compromises.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 19, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
you shouldnt do any drastic changes if it doesnt include adding new stuff

What?  ???  It's almost like you have no idea what an alpha build is.  ANYTHING, even entire gameplay features, can be completely overhauled or cut at any time.  This is common.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 19, 2012, 11:17:30 AM
you shouldnt do any drastic changes if it doesnt include adding new stuff

What?  ???  It's almost like you have no idea what an alpha build is.  ANYTHING, even entire gameplay features, can be completely overhauled or cut at any time.  This is common.

Yep, agreed. Besides, if alex wants to or thinks that the current balance is wrong, he may freely change it completely as he wishes to. And he doesn't need to add something new at all. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 19, 2012, 11:23:07 AM
well overhauling isnt really balancing thats not what i mean is that sometimes you need to be careful when balancing because even seemingly decent change cant totally destroy balance or create a different problem

thats one thing i hate about World of tanks....they cant balance stuff properly so every time they add new stuff they usually make it OP and then nerf it to hell in the next
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: cp252 on July 19, 2012, 11:32:10 AM
well overhauling isnt really balancing thats not what i mean is that sometimes you need to be careful when balancing because even seemingly decent change cant totally destroy balance or create a different problem

thats one thing i hate about World of tanks....they cant balance stuff properly so every time they add new stuff they usually make it OP and then nerf it to hell in the next
The point of being in Alpha, since you appear to genuinely not know, is to make massive game-changing fixes. Sometimes those fixes break the game. Sometimes they improve things. They're all steps on the path to a complete game, so don't whine. Refusing to make balance fixes 'in case they cause more problems' is completely irrational.
Also, I'm not entirely sure, but isn't World of Tanks a complete game? It hasn't been in Alpha for a long time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on July 19, 2012, 12:17:07 PM
World of Tanks current version is 0.7.4, it's still in beta but they realise it for EU and USA 1 year ago and for Russia 2 years ago. The game isn't finished jet its far from it. Sorry for off
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on July 19, 2012, 12:21:56 PM
yeah WOT devs say it is a fully fledged product but anyone whos played the game knows its isnt....their devs abuse lack of similar games on the market...hell in fact Starfarer is better balanced than WOT is at times...they only difference is that combat in Starfarer is quite balanced as it is and just needs some polishing like the new systems

im just saying that sometimes its better to make incremental changes  ;) besides its just my opinion and im not forcing anyone to abide by it....
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 19, 2012, 01:03:39 PM
For what it's worth: I appreciate your guys' feedback on anything and everything, even things that haven't been released yet. Oftentimes it exposes an angle that I hadn't considered, an unanticipated use of something, etc. Getting feedback is as much the point of an alpha/beta as anything else.

That being said, ultimately I've got to do what seems right to me, but feedback - especially well-presented, thoughtful feedback - will often influence what that is :)


I'm not sure why weapon buffs/nerfs are even under debate.  If you don't like it a certain way, go into weapon_data.csv and change them to whatever you want.
The base game should always have a modicum of balance. I mean, otherwise we might as well just be given a blank csv or one where every value is set to 1 to fill in whatever we want.

The way I see it, being able to edit something yourself is the ultimate fail-safe - but not something one should count on the player doing. The base game should be as balanced as possible, and it's something I'm paying careful attention to. With so many things changing, things will slip through the cracks occasionally - but that's what the next version is for. At this point, I wouldn't get too worried about a particular change you don't like - if additional playtesting confirms it's not a good idea, it's a good bet that it will change.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 20, 2012, 05:16:27 AM
Hmm
I have one slight idea for reducing the visibility of phased ships...

You actually need to SEE them. On the edges of the screen they don't come up if phased, so there's a good sense of they can actually come up behind you if you aren't vigilant
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 20, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
It's a great idea, just don't know if it's necessary. Phasing is already pretty crazy powerful.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 20, 2012, 09:47:36 AM
It's a great idea, just don't know if it's necessary. Phasing is already pretty crazy powerful.

How? You can't fire, you overload if you pass through a ship, and have constant flux buildup. To me, shields sounds like a better idea. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 20, 2012, 10:00:31 AM
When the enemy ships fires it's weapons, phase and let it build up its flux. When their flux levels are really high and/or their weapons are on cooldown, come out of phase, hit them with your strike weaponry, then phase and retreat.

Of course, this is mostly dependent on the phase/unphase speed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 20, 2012, 10:29:13 AM
i for one hope the ai is smart enough not to waste their flux reserves on a phased ship
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: phyrex on July 20, 2012, 01:52:11 PM
can we have/hope for an estimate as to when this patch will hit ?
im really eager to mess with the ship sub-system feature (especially the one on the wolf and the medusa)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 20, 2012, 02:20:47 PM
can we have/hope for an estimate as to when this patch will hit ?
im really eager to mess with the ship sub-system feature (especially the one on the wolf and the medusa)

The date has been leaked but im not supposed to tell anyone, but I will do it anyways, the truth must come out!

Spoiler
SoonTM
[close]
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 20, 2012, 02:52:54 PM
I already never use my Tachyon Lance on my front-line ships, I really only ever use it on the Oddessy and have it a distance away from the fighting.  I believe this change will make it from 'Most definitely fire-support' to 'Most definitely not as useful as the auto-pulse'.  By the way Alex, most ships that carry the lance are Capital ships which have a 50% range booster on most configurations, that's long enough for the nerf to range to not matter.  It does however hurt the Sunder with the lance.  The lance is poor in short range, ineffective versus shields, costs a lot, has huge flux inefficiency, for high range and burst damage.  To me that's already enough of a deal breaker for me not to use it on anything other than fire support, and with this change it will become harder to use as fire support.  Most ships don't really even use the lance effectively, treating it like a regular laser and not kiting with long range or anything else like they do with the HIL.



The date has been leaked but im not supposed to tell anyone, but I will do it anyways, the truth must come out!

Spoiler
SoonTM
[close]


(http://i.imgur.com/4KaQY.png)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: phyrex on July 20, 2012, 03:20:11 PM
i find the nerf to the tachyon lance unnecessary.
its a really original weapon but even now, i feel like it is surpassed by the plasma cannon and the autopulse cannon.
not even gonna comment about it with the nerf
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 20, 2012, 03:28:12 PM
As it is, the lance is hilariously broken. Don't worry though. High Energy Focus will help somewhat.  Just means it's not an automatic YES PLEASE on almost every Large Energy slot.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: peterispete on July 20, 2012, 03:34:06 PM
Yeah, in my opinion, the tach lance meant instant death for frigates, fighters, and destroyers, it also meant 3-4 hit kills for some cruisers.
It kinda needed a nerf of some sort because it was the best thing to put on a large energy slot for almost any role.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: phyrex on July 20, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
Yeah, in my opinion, the tach lance meant instant death for frigates, fighters, and destroyers, it also meant 3-4 hit kills for some cruisers.
It kinda needed a nerf of some sort because it was the best thing to put on a large energy slot for almost any role.

but the same can be said for the plasma cannon no ?
you just lead your target a little and any ship you mentionned will get wrecked
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Gaizokubanou on July 20, 2012, 04:38:17 PM
Yeah, in my opinion, the tach lance meant instant death for frigates, fighters, and destroyers, it also meant 3-4 hit kills for some cruisers.
It kinda needed a nerf of some sort because it was the best thing to put on a large energy slot for almost any role.

but the same can be said for the plasma cannon no ?
you just lead your target a little and any ship you mentionned will get wrecked

Well range difference between plasma cannon and tachyon lance is... pretty big.

First shoots across the screen, the latter shoots across the map.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 20, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 20, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
I feel the lance as it is now is very overpowered; its the accuracy that really makes it so silly in my book - no way to dodge that beam. I look forward to playtesting the new lance. SoonTM. :)

The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

True, but consider how incredible an advantage it is for no enemy ship to have the +50 no flux/shield speed boost - thats basically what happens within several thousand distance of a lance. Even if the lance does become no damage, high EMP, it will still slow enemy capitals (and their escorts) to a crawl.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on July 20, 2012, 07:03:47 PM
And I'm fine with that. Lance will be area-of-denial weapon, while not being OP. And it's EMP damage is very nice too, you can now sit back with your Odyssey, repairing fighters, and fire TLs in the right moment, crippling entire ships in one barrage. I find it very... amusing ;>
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Aleskander on July 20, 2012, 07:30:33 PM
I never found the Tachyon lance of Compensation to be that useful, too much OP for my taste

But then it really isn't my style
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Trylobot on July 20, 2012, 08:02:04 PM
@Alex, RE: Changes as of July 14, 2012: I am very excited about all these AI upgrades man. You have a focus on AI that is refreshing for a developer, let alone an indie. I have a feeling I'm going to be cursing you later on though... for giving me too frustratingly realistic naval (space) battles.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: leonvision on July 20, 2012, 08:06:31 PM
hey alex, have you thought about limiting or even stopping the turn rate of the tachyon lance when it's been fired? this way it shall have a hard to tracking fighters or frigates, while can still be devastating if it actually hits. with this, it's still possible to adjust slightly while firing by turning the whole ship, but will not allow precise tracking. this may be a big nerf, but with the presence of the tachyon lance, it forces all hostiles to keep their shield up or be horribly EMP'd.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: hydremajor on July 20, 2012, 11:19:35 PM
hey alex, have you thought about limiting or even stopping the turn rate of the tachyon lance when it's been fired? this way it shall have a hard to tracking fighters or frigates, while can still be devastating if it actually hits. with this, it's still possible to adjust slightly while firing by turning the whole ship, but will not allow precise tracking. this may be a big nerf, but with the presence of the tachyon lance, it forces all hostiles to keep their shield up or be horribly EMP'd.

Already the case >_>

By release time the lore behind it won't mean sh*t
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: leonvision on July 20, 2012, 11:22:41 PM
hey alex, have you thought about limiting or even stopping the turn rate of the tachyon lance when it's been fired? this way it shall have a hard to tracking fighters or frigates, while can still be devastating if it actually hits. with this, it's still possible to adjust slightly while firing by turning the whole ship, but will not allow precise tracking. this may be a big nerf, but with the presence of the tachyon lance, it forces all hostiles to keep their shield up or be horribly EMP'd.

Already the case >_>

By release time the lore behind it won't mean sh*t

nope, you can still turn it slightly WITH the turret's turn rate, im talking about completely locked when it's firing.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 21, 2012, 04:32:47 PM
hey alex, have you thought about limiting or even stopping the turn rate of the tachyon lance when it's been fired? this way it shall have a hard to tracking fighters or frigates, while can still be devastating if it actually hits. with this, it's still possible to adjust slightly while firing by turning the whole ship, but will not allow precise tracking. this may be a big nerf, but with the presence of the tachyon lance, it forces all hostiles to keep their shield up or be horribly EMP'd.

Already the case >_>

By release time the lore behind it won't mean sh*t

Lore is nice but really doesn't matter in an alpha. The lore can be rewritten to match good gameplay afterall.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 22, 2012, 01:37:02 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

Wrong again. The Lance's enormous burst damage currently overloads the shields of all fighters and most (if not all) mid- and low-tech frigates.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 22, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

Wrong again. The Lance's enormous burst damage currently overloads the shields of all fighters and most (if not all) mid- and low-tech frigates.
Not to mention being absolute mayhem if it hits armour and enemy ships run away if they see themselves in range
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: armoredcookie on July 22, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
Is the Tachyon Lance getting a cost/OP cost reduction too? I'd never want to use that weapon if it had the same OP cost yet is around two thirds to half as effective as it is now.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 22, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
Is the Tachyon Lance getting a cost/OP cost reduction too? I'd never want to use that weapon if it had the same OP cost yet is around two thirds to half as effective as it is now.

I'd probably still use it, as it'd still be absolutely devastating to fighters, frigates, and ships with their shields down. It's still a LOT of burst damage and range, and a lot of EMP delivered. I think it'll still be worth the cost.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 22, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

Wrong again. The Lance's enormous burst damage currently overloads the shields of all fighters and most (if not all) mid- and low-tech frigates.


Let's see:

Lance Burst Damage:  1500 + 750 EMP 
Total Damage to shields:  1500


Fighters:

Dagger Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Longbow Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Trident Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6

Xyphos Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6




Frigates:
Brawler Flux Capacity: 2750 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3437.5 Total Damage Absorption.

Dram Flux Capacity:  1500 ( Efficiency 1.2 ) = 1250 Total Damage Absorption.

Hyperion Flux Capacity:  3300 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 5500 Total Damage Absorption.

Lasher Flux Capacity:  2100 ( Efficiency 1.0 ) = 2100 Total Damage Absorption.

Omen Flux Capacity:  2200 ( Efficiency .4 ) = 5500

Shuttle Flux Capacity:  1600 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2000

Tempest Flux Capacity:  2500 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3125

Vigilance Flux Capacity:  1900 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2375

Wolf Flux Capacity:  2250 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2812.5



I believe you are quite wrong.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Cosmitz on July 22, 2012, 05:03:37 PM
Lances are by far not the best 'damage' guns in the game. They won't take out an Onslaught but they will help nuking its engines from 3000m away while you keep it focused on your cruiser.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 22, 2012, 10:27:36 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

Wrong again. The Lance's enormous burst damage currently overloads the shields of all fighters and most (if not all) mid- and low-tech frigates.


Let's see:

Lance Burst Damage:  1500 + 750 EMP 
Total Damage to shields:  1500


Fighters:

Dagger Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Longbow Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Trident Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6

Xyphos Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6




Frigates:
Brawler Flux Capacity: 2750 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3437.5 Total Damage Absorption.

Dram Flux Capacity:  1500 ( Efficiency 1.2 ) = 1250 Total Damage Absorption.

Hyperion Flux Capacity:  3300 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 5500 Total Damage Absorption.

Lasher Flux Capacity:  2100 ( Efficiency 1.0 ) = 2100 Total Damage Absorption.

Omen Flux Capacity:  2200 ( Efficiency .4 ) = 5500

Shuttle Flux Capacity:  1600 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2000

Tempest Flux Capacity:  2500 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3125

Vigilance Flux Capacity:  1900 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2375

Wolf Flux Capacity:  2250 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2812.5



I believe you are quite wrong.

I didn't say it did it in one shot. Typically it's two shots, since the refire rate is sufficient that most frigates cannot dissipate enough soft flux in time for the second shot to force the shields down. The fighters will all almost certainly die in two shots. Once the shields go down on frigates, it's game over, as the massive EMP will knock everything out and shot number three is the finisher.

Keep in mind that this is done at a range where absolutely nothing short of Pilums or another Lance has any hope of firing back. Taking out ships in two or three perfectly accurate shots from halfway across the map is hilariously broken... and unshielded fighter wings (the vast majority) suffer even more, losing one or two members per lance shot.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 22, 2012, 10:56:00 PM
Also to consider: the Lance combines perfectly with other lances either on the same ship or different. Two lances on one ship will pierce the shields on every frigate except the omen or hyperion in 2 volleys with no possible retaliation. A 4 lance Paragon will punch through every single frigate and in multiple shots any destroyer.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on July 23, 2012, 01:34:57 AM
Also to consider: the Lance combines perfectly with other lances either on the same ship or different. Two lances on one ship will pierce the shields on every frigate except the omen or hyperion in 2 volleys with no possible retaliation. A 4 lance Paragon will punch through every single frigate and in multiple shots any destroyer.

This. You don't use just 1 Lance.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on July 23, 2012, 04:30:38 AM
well uf you use more then 1 lance then of course it will be a good wepon, like many more large wepon type,
lances are good only on far range, on cqc its almost suicide ( pint def + lancec + shield = overfux in no time) 
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 23, 2012, 06:10:40 AM
well uf you use more then 1 lance then of course it will be a good wepon, like many more large wepon type,
lances are good only on far range, on cqc its almost suicide ( pint def + lancec + shield = overfux in no time) 

They're pretty solid up close too... huge burst damage punches through armor and the enormous EMP burst disables just about everything it hits.

And keep in mind, it's very easy to use the lance JUST at long range. Stick two on an Odyssey and give it a "Carrier" or "Fire Support" waypoint behind a cloud of fighters and watch everything melt.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 23, 2012, 07:39:57 AM
Lances are Lances, they will poke a giant hole in your ship without mercy.  Overpowered as they are, they're balanced out by the long time in between bursts.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 23, 2012, 07:50:45 AM
Lances are Lances, they will poke a giant hole in your ship without mercy.  Overpowered as they are, they're balanced out by the long time in between bursts.

They're not balanced out by the long time between bursts. That's the problem. They completely destroy smaller craft singly with pinpoint accuracy (I know, I ran a Railgun/ TacLance Sunder solo against hilariously large fleets) and if you can bring two or three to bear, nothing smaller than a cruiser will hold up under that onslaught due to the incredible ability of the Lance to concentrate a lot of firepower on one ship from anywhere in the map.

Seriously, anyone who's used the Lance in combat knows its power, and it overshadows many of the other Large-sized energy weapons as a result. No other Large weapon (not even the devastating Heavy Needler) has such an incredible effect on the dynamics of the battlefield, nor such incredible effectiveness against every ship type with such long range.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 23, 2012, 09:29:56 AM
Just a random question about the phase system in general: How customisable is the whole thing? Like in terms of the phasing in/out effects on individual ships? Will that be moddable at all or is it hardcoded?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 23, 2012, 09:39:09 AM
Just a random question about the phase system in general: How customisable is the whole thing? Like in terms of the phasing in/out effects on individual ships? Will that be moddable at all or is it hardcoded?

As far as individual ships using the same phase cloak system, there are two glow layers that are specific per ship, but beyond that, it's all defined in the system itself.

If you're looking to create an alternate phase cloak system, that's much more moddable - you can set the colors for the glow layers and configure some other visual changes for the ship - weapon and engine glow modifiers, a teleporter-like shimmer effect (which in itself is pretty configurable), etc. For example, if you'll notice on the screenshot in the blog post, the phased ship doesn't have any engine glows - that's defined in the system. You could instead make the engine glows bigger, glowier, change color, etc.

If you really wanted to, actually, you could set up a unique phase cloak system per ship that functioned the same but looked different.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 23, 2012, 09:44:18 AM
Ah, excellent, just the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: armoredcookie on July 23, 2012, 09:49:42 AM
So how will phasing be applicable to fighters? If at all?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 23, 2012, 09:56:21 AM
So how will phasing be applicable to fighters? If at all?

There aren't any phase fighters in the game right now. Whether there will be any is up in the air - but the fighter (and drone) AI knows about using a phase cloak if it's equipped with one.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dx on July 23, 2012, 12:13:50 PM
Phased Drone! Do want!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 23, 2012, 12:50:17 PM
Wait, is it possible then to create a phase ship that has an optical cloak aswell? (To make the ship more invisible :))
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 23, 2012, 12:53:49 PM
I'm more interested in the phase-in/out effects. Having low tech phase ships shred their way through crudely, while the high tech ones gracefully slide into phase would be a magnificent sight
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 23, 2012, 12:55:16 PM
won't be invisible to the AI if you just make it invisible through an effect (@upgradecap)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: phyrex on July 23, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
I'm more interested in the phase-in/out effects. Having low tech phase ships shred their way through crudely, while the high tech ones gracefully slide into phase would be a magnificent sight

thats actually a really good idea.
i could see low-tech ship phase in like the predators in the movie with all the buzzing lighting and stuff while the high-tech one would gracefully phase-in like the jumpers in stargate atlantis
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 23, 2012, 01:27:39 PM
won't be invisible to the AI if you just make it invisible through an effect (@upgradecap)
Well, that's true.  But it'd be neat also if the Ai could be programmed to  to react to ships according to their visibility :D

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 23, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
I'm curious: since apparently the mechanics of phasing are editable like other ship systems, is it possible to change the key bindings for its (or any other system's, for that matter) activation? If so, I'm assuming the choices would only be the F key or right mouse button, but that's all I'm interested in.

Also, if it the above is possible, then would this allow for a ship to have two systems, with one system bound to the right mouse button, and the other bound to the F key?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 23, 2012, 01:56:13 PM
I'm pretty sure there is zero chance of getting two systems onto a single ship. Phasing replaces shields. So it'll be the same bind as shield activation and deactivation.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 23, 2012, 02:35:18 PM
I'm curious: since apparently the mechanics of phasing are editable like other ship systems, is it possible to change the key bindings for its (or any other system's, for that matter) activation? If so, I'm assuming the choices would only be the F key or right mouse button, but that's all I'm interested in.

Also, if it the above is possible, then would this allow for a ship to have two systems, with one system bound to the right mouse button, and the other bound to the F key?

You can change the key bindings for "use shields" and "use system", but I'm not sure if that's quite what you're asking.

A ship can't have two systems unless one of them is phase-cloak-instead-of-shields, though. The way it's specified is there's a "system" field in ship_data.csv that has the proper system, and you set the shieldType field to PHASE for phase ships. Really, shieldType ought to be renamed to "defenseType".
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 23, 2012, 02:49:49 PM
A ship can't have two systems unless one of them is phase-cloak-instead-of-shields, though. The way it's specified is there's a "system" field in ship_data.csv that has the proper system, and you set the shieldType field to PHASE for phase ships. Really, shieldType ought to be renamed to "defenseType".
Ah, I see. I was under the assumption that the ship's shieldType field on phase ships would be set to "NONE", and that the phase ability was simply a ship system that was activated by the right mouse button, rather than the F key. Anyway, thanks, that answers my question.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 23, 2012, 06:52:32 PM
The lance is only a good sniper weapon because ships wouldn't arm shields when too far away from a lance turret, with that fix it should resolve some issues.

Wrong again. The Lance's enormous burst damage currently overloads the shields of all fighters and most (if not all) mid- and low-tech frigates.


Let's see:

Lance Burst Damage:  1500 + 750 EMP 
Total Damage to shields:  1500


Fighters:

Dagger Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Longbow Flux Capacity:  600 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1000

Trident Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6

Xyphos Flux Capacity:  1000 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 1666.6




Frigates:
Brawler Flux Capacity: 2750 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3437.5 Total Damage Absorption.

Dram Flux Capacity:  1500 ( Efficiency 1.2 ) = 1250 Total Damage Absorption.

Hyperion Flux Capacity:  3300 ( Efficiency .6 ) = 5500 Total Damage Absorption.

Lasher Flux Capacity:  2100 ( Efficiency 1.0 ) = 2100 Total Damage Absorption.

Omen Flux Capacity:  2200 ( Efficiency .4 ) = 5500

Shuttle Flux Capacity:  1600 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2000

Tempest Flux Capacity:  2500 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 3125

Vigilance Flux Capacity:  1900 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2375

Wolf Flux Capacity:  2250 ( Efficiency .8 ) = 2812.5



I believe you are quite wrong.

I didn't say it did it in one shot. Typically it's two shots, since the refire rate is sufficient that most frigates cannot dissipate enough soft flux in time for the second shot to force the shields down. The fighters will all almost certainly die in two shots. Once the shields go down on frigates, it's game over, as the massive EMP will knock everything out and shot number three is the finisher.

Keep in mind that this is done at a range where absolutely nothing short of Pilums or another Lance has any hope of firing back. Taking out ships in two or three perfectly accurate shots from halfway across the map is hilariously broken... and unshielded fighter wings (the vast majority) suffer even more, losing one or two members per lance shot.



Ships colored in blue can survive two shots, you also forget that lances require a spotter to be effective.  I see the lance as an energy artillery gun, weak in short range or against prepared, good otherwise.  What I don't quite like is that people are complaining that an artillery weapon does too much damage when it's very weak up close and relies on other ships to operate effectively.  I also don't believe that the correct solution to a modestly overpowered weapon is to nerf it to the point where no one will want to use it.  It sounds a little too close to TF2 and their tendency to nerf good weapons into the ground because people whine and moan, like the tomislav from tf2 was nerfed into yet another gimp gun for the heavy, like the other 2 it already has.  I seriously want a weapon that's worth using next to the auto-pulse.  Right now there's not any good energy weapon besides for the lance that can compete with the autopulse.  I don't believe the solution is to make everything equally as impotent to induce some semblance of 'balance'.  What irks me the most is people complaining about a gun being really good at what it's supposed to be good at.  Back to the Tomislav again, people complained that a gun who penalizes damage and increases deployment speed was too powerful because it increases deployment speed.  Frankly I see the lance going down the same path already.  Incredibly flux inefficient, subpar damage, soft flux, horrendous OP cost, with these changes it'll be just another HIL, flashy but ultimately useless and impractical.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 23, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
@JamesRaynor: It kind of feels like you're picking away at technicalities in Temjin's post without addressing the larger point.

I can't help but wonder if you've tried the lance in earnest in terms of building a fleet around it - otherwise, I seriously doubt you'd call it "modestly overpowered". Whether it takes 2 or 3 or even 4 shots to take out a frigate is academic. The point is that a lance-heavy fleet with a few spotters dominates absolutely anything else right now - generally, with no losses. If you feel that this is fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

I'd say - based on some playtesting - that it's "modestly overpowered" after these changes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 23, 2012, 08:32:37 PM
@JamesRaynor: It kind of feels like you're picking away at technicalities in Temjin's post without addressing the larger point.

I can't help but wonder if you've tried the lance in earnest in terms of building a fleet around it - otherwise, I seriously doubt you'd call it "modestly overpowered". Whether it takes 2 or 3 or even 4 shots to take out a frigate is academic. The point is that a lance-heavy fleet with a few spotters dominates absolutely anything else right now - generally, with no losses. If you feel that this is fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

I'd say - based on some playtesting - that it's "modestly overpowered" after these changes.


Usually it involves a lot of friendly fire from the lances, it also quires a TON of FP to field lance craft.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on July 24, 2012, 12:49:46 AM
Much of weapon balancing depend on how much of specific weapon is represented in-game and how much of it is available to player.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 24, 2012, 01:50:14 AM
I never got my question answered, so let me re-quote it :)
Wait, is it possible then to create a phase ship that has an optical cloak aswell? (To make the ship more invisible :))


Bear in mind that I'd like offical answer on this :)

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on July 24, 2012, 05:06:07 AM
I never got my question answered, so let me re-quote it :)
Wait, is it possible then to create a phase ship that has an optical cloak aswell? (To make the ship more invisible :))


Bear in mind that I'd like offical answer on this :)



I think this has been answered in a round-about sort of way by the devs already.

Or if you were to phrase the question differently, and get the answer you seek: "how will the AI react to 'partially visible' ships?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no planned mechanism for 'partially visible' ships - that concept was thrown out with the first iterations of the phasing design. Basically it can't work the way it needs to work in an intuitive manner for both the AI and the player.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Valiant19 on July 24, 2012, 05:09:34 AM
I never got my question answered, so let me re-quote it :)
Wait, is it possible then to create a phase ship that has an optical cloak aswell? (To make the ship more invisible :))


Bear in mind that I'd like offical answer on this :)



Well...if we're talking theoretically and asking "Is it possible within the confines of the system?", then the answer would be sort of.  If the AI were programmed to not recognize ships that had an optical cloak activated in a system slot, then having Optical Cloak as a system on a ship that uses Phase Cloaking instead of shields would be possible.

EDIT: I can't stress enough that Alex has said that he is not planning on adding any sort of optical cloaking to the game.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 24, 2012, 06:32:16 AM
Ships colored in blue can survive two shots, you also forget that lances require a spotter to be effective.  I see the lance as an energy artillery gun, weak in short range or against prepared, good otherwise.  What I don't quite like is that people are complaining that an artillery weapon does too much damage when it's very weak up close and relies on other ships to operate effectively.  I also don't believe that the correct solution to a modestly overpowered weapon is to nerf it to the point where no one will want to use it.  It sounds a little too close to TF2 and their tendency to nerf good weapons into the ground because people whine and moan, like the tomislav from tf2 was nerfed into yet another gimp gun for the heavy, like the other 2 it already has.  I seriously want a weapon that's worth using next to the auto-pulse.  Right now there's not any good energy weapon besides for the lance that can compete with the autopulse.  I don't believe the solution is to make everything equally as impotent to induce some semblance of 'balance'.  What irks me the most is people complaining about a gun being really good at what it's supposed to be good at.  Back to the Tomislav again, people complained that a gun who penalizes damage and increases deployment speed was too powerful because it increases deployment speed.  Frankly I see the lance going down the same path already.  Incredibly flux inefficient, subpar damage, soft flux, horrendous OP cost, with these changes it'll be just another HIL, flashy but ultimately useless and impractical.

The problem is, all it takes is a wing or two of wasps (the fastest fighters in the game) to spot, since fighters are immune to Lance friendly fire. Then, anything that shows its face at the capture points or wherever the Wasps are situated takes two or three concentrated Lance shots at once. That's enough to completely neutralize anything fast enough to make it to the capture point, if not destroy it outright. This immediately cedes map control and allowing you to bring in more ships that travel faster and have longer range. Four or more lances brought to bear will cripple anything short of a Paragon with Hardened Shields and maxed venting in short order.

I am speaking not from a theorycrafting perspective, but from many dozens of hours of experience.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 07:44:38 AM
Right, no optical cloaking as far as the AI is concerned. Which is part of the reason of why there isn't any, so it's not the kind thing you could just "throw in".

I've really got to take a look at making the AI itself moddable, though. It's going to be a fair bit of work, but that's something I'd really like to do at some point. Hopefully no hitherto-unseen barrier presents itself.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 24, 2012, 09:51:08 AM
Right, no optical cloaking as far as the AI is concerned. Which is part of the reason of why there isn't any, so it's not the kind thing you could just "throw in".

I've really got to take a look at making the AI itself moddable, though. It's going to be a fair bit of work, but that's something I'd really like to do at some point. Hopefully no hitherto-unseen barrier presents itself.

Yay! I am a bit sad that there won't be any optical cloak :(

Anyways, can it be modded in? :D Yes, i'm aware the AI is possible to exploit this somewhat. :/
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
Yes, the transparency level on the phase cloak is configurable.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 24, 2012, 10:44:19 AM
So for the editing/adding of new systems, is there a new file type (.system?) or is it done in the ship file itself (Like system type: Overthrust, magnitude: xyz, recharge: abc)?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
There's a .system file for each system, along with an optional script (in Java) for any ship stat modification the system needs to do. The latter works the same way a hull mod does now.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 24, 2012, 10:56:10 AM
Hmm, that stat modification reminds me of another question I was meaning to ask (Yeah, I've got quite a few of those :P), can ship systems be used to cause damage directly to a ship and/or make an area of effect damage thing? For example a self destruct mechanism designed to cause as much damage as possible
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 24, 2012, 10:57:30 AM
Yes, the transparency level on the phase cloak is configurable.

So, it is possible to set it to near invisible? (like transparency set to 90-95%?) :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 11:03:33 AM
No, that's not currently possible. Well... unless you get very creative with weapon and make a system that fires an invisible torpedo into your own hull. You actually *could* do that, I'm pretty sure.

A self-destruct would be problematic because it would need an entirely new AI for it, too (and really, a player confirmation mechanism, or it'd lead to no end of frustration). When modding in new systems, you really have to build on something that's already there - at least to some extent.

Hmm... systems might be a good thing to open up AI modding for first.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 24, 2012, 11:11:39 AM
No, that's not currently possible. Well... unless you get very creative with weapon and make a system that fires an invisible torpedo into your own hull. You actually *could* do that, I'm pretty sure.

 :'(

Oh well, atleast it can be done somehow XD


Oh, and yeah, can the systems eventually be made so that modders can mod the systems beyond recognition? (AKA custom, built-from-scratch system :))
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Valiant19 on July 24, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
No, that's not currently possible. Well... unless you get very creative with weapon and make a system that fires an invisible torpedo into your own hull. You actually *could* do that, I'm pretty sure.

 :'(

Oh well, atleast it can be done somehow XD


Oh, and yeah, can the systems eventually be made so that modders can mod the systems beyond recognition? (AKA custom, built-from-scratch system :))

Actually, I'm pretty sure Alex was talking about K-64's question, not yours.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 24, 2012, 12:41:58 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Alex was talking about K-64's question, not yours.
I am pretty sure of this also, haha.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 12:43:30 PM
Yeah, I was answering K-64's question. Should have quoted.

So, it is possible to set it to near invisible? (like transparency set to 90-95%?) :D

Yes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 03:52:43 PM
Updated patch notes.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 24, 2012, 04:07:35 PM
Ooh, a combat freighter, interesting. Any chance we could get a screenshot?

And, what sort of new things did you add to the CampaignFleetAPI and FleetMemberAPI files? I'd love to know.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 04:12:02 PM
Ooh, a combat freighter, interesting. Any chance we could get a screenshot?

And, what sort of new things did you add to the CampaignFleetAPI and FleetMemberAPI files? I'd love to know.

Working on the screenshot - reinstalling Photoshop as we speak so I can make it into a jpeg :)

CampaignFleetAPI:
Spoiler

   void setLocation(float x, float y);
   
   boolean isAlive();
   
   void addAssignment(FleetAssignment assignment, SectorEntityToken target, float maxDurationInDays);
   void addAssignment(FleetAssignment assignment, SectorEntityToken target, float maxDurationInDays, Script onCompletion);
   void clearAssignments();
   void setPreferredResupplyLocation(SectorEntityToken token);
   
   
   FactionAPI getFaction();
   Vector2f getVelocity();
   Vector2f getLocation();

   PersonAPI getCommander();
   List<FleetMemberAPI> getMembersListCopy();
   List<FleetMemberAPI> getCombatReadyMembersListCopy();
   FleetMemberAPI getFlagship();
   int getFleetPoints();
   boolean isPlayerFleet();
   void addFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
   void removeFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
   
   
   void setName(String name);
   float getTotalSupplyCostPerDay();
   int getNumCapitals();
   int getNumCruisers();
   int getNumDestroyers();
   int getNumFrigates();
   int getNumFighters();
   
   float getTravelSpeed();
[close]

FleetMemberAPI:
Spoiler

   PersonAPI getCaptain();
   void setCrewXPLevel(CargoAPI.CrewXPLevel crewXP);
   
   
   String getShipName();
   void setShipName(String name);
   
   String getSpecId();
   FleetMemberType getType();
   
   boolean isFlagship();
   
   int getNumFlightDecks();
   boolean isCarrier();
   boolean isCivilian();
   void setFlagship(boolean isFlagship);
   int getFleetPointCost();
   boolean isFighterWing();
   boolean isFrigate();
   boolean isDestroyer();
   boolean isCruiser();
   boolean isCapital();
   CargoAPI.CrewXPLevel getCrewXPLevel();
   float getFuelCapacity();
   float getCargoCapacity();
   float getMinCrew();
   float getNeededCrew();
   float getMaxCrew();
   float getFuelUse();
   float getHangarSpace();
   float getBaseValue();
[close]

Any requests?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on July 24, 2012, 04:12:38 PM
One day soon, I'll log on and in the corner of the forum page there'll be... News: Starferer 0.53.0a is out!

...and I'll smile.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 04:19:03 PM
Screenshot of the Mule (click to view full size):

(http://fractalsoftworks.com/public/mule.jpg) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/public/mule.jpg)

One day soon, I'll log on and in the corner of the forum page there'll be... News: Starferer 0.53.0a is out!

...and I'll smile.

Likewise :) Seriously, I can't wait to get this in your guys' hands - just a few things we've got to wrap up before that can happen.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 24, 2012, 04:28:50 PM
Another!...combat freighter?  Sounds like more pirates. ;D
But then again, it has that midline feel and look to it.  Can't want to test it out. :)

EDIT:
That rear light MG sticks out A LOT in the exhaust light.  Can something be done about that?
And a "few" things to sort out?  I say it's released withing a week from now. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 24, 2012, 04:37:42 PM
Nice, reminds me of a Destroyer sized Venture. Can't wait to get my hands on that, and while we are talking about waiting... You see where i am going. ?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 24, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
I'm quite liking the look of the Mule there. From what I can see there, it appears to be able to take a fair beating, especially for a freighter, be it combat or no.

As an aside point, are thrusters ever going to be truly directional? I was testing earlier on with having a rear pointing thruster to see if it would only activate if I put the ship in reverse, unfortunately it didn't work. Such a feature would be one of the small details that'd make the combat that bit more flavoursome than it already is
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
This version is not out yet - this is just a list of changes made/new features implemented so far in the development build.

Changes as of July 24, 2012

...

Ship Systems:
  • Fortress Shield: generates hard flux but allows soft flux dissipation while it's on, allowing ship to take a "breather" in combat when its flux is high from weapons fire
  • Maneuvering Jets: removed cooldown, added flux cost

...

Hmm, that changes my thoughts on the fortress shield quite a bit! How much hard flux is generated, or is that just the flux from incoming fire?
Also that sounds like a really good call on the maneuvering jets - I was happy when you made the same call with the missile launchers.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 24, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
Any requests?
Actually, yes, I do have one: would it be possible to make the value for the player's credits accessible? I'd love to be able to add or subtract from them, and create events based on a player's monetary worth.

I'd also love to be able to create simple text-only pop-up boxes that could be used for notifications (something similar to accident report pop-ups), as the current notification system in the campaign screen is a bit too subtle, and makes it easy for players to miss important notifications. Though, I understand that's a fairly large addition--perhaps for the next version of the game?

Finally, the Mule looks pretty nice--it scared me for a second though, when I saw the scaled-down image, it appeared as some sort of Venture kitbash. :P
So, will this ship be replacing a lot of the Buffalos in the pirate fleets? They could use the extra firepower.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Catattack998 on July 24, 2012, 04:46:40 PM
Okay, I am going to draw attention to what K-64 said. I also really want to see directional thrusters. I don't think it would be that hard to visually have the thrusters activate when logically needed, but I do recognize that it might be a pain to deal with flameouts of odd-angle thrusters and how it affects the steering. :P

Also, I have a more tricky request. I would love it if we could set an "engine mount" sprite, and have gimbaling on engines. Kerbal Space Program has made me realize that having engines that vector thrust is an actual thing, a viable thing, and something that shouldn't be ignored. It would look awesome to have our ships swish their engines around as we mash the keys, and it wouldn't add any extra visual clutter to the battles.

EDIT: P.S. I agree with Psiyon on both the player credit point and the "perceived kitbash" point.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kregoth on July 24, 2012, 04:49:06 PM
Quote
Admiral AI:
Knows to engage enemy fire support ships when they become a significant danger

I was actually just about to suggest this very addition myself, Thanks for this! I honestly thought that it made fire support ships to powerful as they where largely ignored by the AI. This should prove to increase player tactics in outfitting long range weapons as now they actually need to consider point defense, this could mean dedicated point defense ships used as an escort to be far more valuable in fleet operations for fire support ships:)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 24, 2012, 05:00:36 PM
Requests on coding or general gameplay? :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Kregoth on July 24, 2012, 05:32:38 PM
Requests on coding or general gameplay? :)

EDIT: Ooops I miss read that I though you said "Requests on coding of general game play?"
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 05:43:10 PM
Another!...combat freighter?  Sounds like more pirates. ;D
But then again, it has that midline feel and look to it.  Can't want to test it out. :)

EDIT:
That rear light MG sticks out A LOT in the exhaust light.  Can something be done about that?
And a "few" things to sort out?  I say it's released withing a week from now. ;D

Another? It's pretty much alone in its role!

The rear MG... I don't know, I think it kind of works - also, this is with the maneuvering jets on, so there's a lot more glow than usual. The ideal solution would be to add some glow bleed here ("bloom" effect) but that's not in the cards.


I'm quite liking the look of the Mule there. From what I can see there, it appears to be able to take a fair beating, especially for a freighter, be it combat or no.

Yep - it's intended to be similar to the Venture in design. Quite likely designed by the same corporation in the early days of the Domain.

As an aside point, are thrusters ever going to be truly directional? I was testing earlier on with having a rear pointing thruster to see if it would only activate if I put the ship in reverse, unfortunately it didn't work. Such a feature would be one of the small details that'd make the combat that bit more flavoursome than it already is

Okay, I am going to draw attention to what K-64 said. I also really want to see directional thrusters. I don't think it would be that hard to visually have the thrusters activate when logically needed, but I do recognize that it might be a pain to deal with flameouts of odd-angle thrusters and how it affects the steering. :P

Also, I have a more tricky request. I would love it if we could set an "engine mount" sprite, and have gimbaling on engines. Kerbal Space Program has made me realize that having engines that vector thrust is an actual thing, a viable thing, and something that shouldn't be ignored. It would look awesome to have our ships swish their engines around as we mash the keys, and it wouldn't add any extra visual clutter to the battles.

I just don't see that happening. It's the kind of thing that has a lot of impact on the visual ship designs, and introduces a lot of constraints there. I can see it fitting into a game that was all about modeling thrust accurately, and while Starfarer has a few nods to that (spinning out of control when some engines are disabled, etc), it's certainly not a focal point of the game design. So, I don't see making it a key component of the ship designs, either.

What I can see doing at some point is being able to flag thrusters to go on/off depending on the keys being pressed, but in all honesty, that's not very likely either, as it'll involve some significant ship retro-fitting. Still, never say never and all.

Hmm, that changes my thoughts on the fortress shield quite a bit! How much hard flux is generated, or is that just the flux from incoming fire?
Also that sounds like a really good call on the maneuvering jets - I was happy when you made the same call with the missile launchers.

2.5% of the base flux capacity per second, plus whatever comes in from damage (at a 10x improved efficiency).

Yeah - cooldowns seem to get in the way a lot of the time. Sometimes they're necessary, and sometimes they work... but I'd say they're better for controlling the rate at which the player can do something, not for controlling when they can do it, if that distinction makes any sense. I'm not sure that's good as a hard and fast rule, though.

Requests on coding or general gameplay? :)

Was just asking as far as the modding API.

Actually, yes, I do have one: would it be possible to make the value for the player's credits accessible? I'd love to be able to add or subtract from them, and create events based on a player's monetary worth.

I'd also love to be able to create simple text-only pop-up boxes that could be used for notifications (something similar to accident report pop-ups), as the current notification system in the campaign screen is a bit too subtle, and makes it easy for players to miss important notifications. Though, I understand that's a fairly large addition--perhaps for the next version of the game?

Added SectorAPI.getPlayerFleet() and CampaignFleetAPI.getCargo() methods - that should let you get a hold of the player fleet and then work with the credits using its CargoAPI.getCredits() method (which returns a MutableValue). Haven't tested it, though - advance apologies if something there doesn't work.

About messages - I think it's a good idea, but you're right, it's not exactly something I could just hack in. Have to make sure it plays nice with other UI code, which could be particularly tricky since a mod could call that at an awkward time.


Finally, the Mule looks pretty nice--it scared me for a second though, when I saw the scaled-down image, it appeared as some sort of Venture kitbash. :P

Thanks! Hmm, yeah - not sure there's any way around that, though. It's definitely in the same style, and is meant to be - and if you've seen a lot of kitbashing, then anything similar-looking is bound to make your mind go there for a second :)


So, will this ship be replacing a lot of the Buffalos in the pirate fleets? They could use the extra firepower.

More of a Tarsus replacement, but yeah, you'll see a decent number of those in the pirate fleets.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 24, 2012, 06:14:16 PM
Added SectorAPI.getPlayerFleet() and CampaignFleetAPI.getCargo() methods - that should let you get a hold of the player fleet and then work with the credits using its CargoAPI.getCredits() method (which returns a MutableValue). Haven't tested it, though - advance apologies if something there doesn't work.
Awesome, thank you! Now I'll be able to code all sorts of lovely things, like station defense contracts, preferred customer contracts, buying out small mercenary groups to work for you, creating a virtual stock market to invest in... this will be fun.

About messages - I think it's a good idea, but you're right, it's not exactly something I could just hack in.
Of course; I figured it probably wouldn't be a simple hackjob. Oh well, there's always the future.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 24, 2012, 06:22:07 PM
Quote
Awesome, thank you! Now I'll be able to code all sorts of lovely things, like station defense contracts, preferred customer contracts, buying out small mercenary groups to work for you, creating a virtual stock market to invest in... this will be fun.

Now i expect you to make that.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 06:26:04 PM
Added SectorAPI.getPlayerFleet() and CampaignFleetAPI.getCargo() methods - that should let you get a hold of the player fleet and then work with the credits using its CargoAPI.getCredits() method (which returns a MutableValue). Haven't tested it, though - advance apologies if something there doesn't work.
Awesome, thank you! Now I'll be able to code all sorts of lovely things, like station defense contracts, preferred customer contracts, buying out small mercenary groups to work for you, creating a virtual stock market to invest in... this will be fun.

Hmm - you know, I just realized - getCargo() was already there, in SectorEntityToken (which CampaignFleetAPI is derived from). The only tricky part is getting the player fleet object - you can do it using getEntityByName with... I don't remember what, actually - something like "Player Fleet" or just "Fleet". In any case, SectorAPI.getPlayerFleet() makes this much nicer.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 24, 2012, 06:45:24 PM
Hmm - you know, I just realized - getCargo() was already there, in SectorEntityToken (which CampaignFleetAPI is derived from). The only tricky part is getting the player fleet object - you can do it using getEntityByName with... I don't remember what, actually - something like "Player Fleet" or just "Fleet". In any case, SectorAPI.getPlayerFleet() makes this much nicer.
Huh, you're right. It's been a little while :P I was always under the impression, though, that getCredits() simply returned the player's credit value, and didn't allow for it to be edited.

So, forgive my lack of experience when it comes to programming, but how exactly would I modify a player's credits with getCredits()? I always guessed that I would have needed a setCredits(float quantity) to do that with.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 07:11:51 PM
So, forgive my lack of experience when it comes to programming, but how exactly would I modify a player's credits with getCredits()? I always guessed that I would have needed a setCredits(float quantity) to do that with.

getCredits() returns a MutableValue (which is a SF-specific class, not a general Java one). MutableValue has a few methods: get(), add(), subtract(), and set().

So you could do:
getCredits().get() to get the actual number
getCredits().set(1000) to set it to 1000
getCredits().add(500) to add 500 credits. That's actually a convenience method, equivalent to getCredits().set(getCredits().get() + 500).

Does that make sense?

It would probably be more intuitive to just have getCredits(), setCredits(), addCredits(), etc in CargoAPI. I ended up doing it this way to avoid having to code up all these extra methods (and instead expose MutableValues) but in retrospect it may have been a mistake. It certainly complicates things a bit.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 24, 2012, 07:16:53 PM
Combat Freighters:
Condor, Buffalo Mk. II, Hound, and now the Mule

Or is it forever alone?

Anyways, I'll leave the coding talk to the pros, I'm a humble modder, no idea how to do anything deeper than weapons, ships, solar systems, and missions. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 24, 2012, 07:28:15 PM
Combat Freighters:
Condor, Buffalo Mk. II, Hound, and now the Mule

Condor: not a freighter, a former freighter converted to a carrier - no longer fills freighter role.
Buffalo Mk. II: poor cargo capacity, no longer a freighter
Hound: Fair enough, but it's a frigate :)

The Mule retains significant cargo capacity and combines it with respectable firepower and strong defenses - that's what I mean when I say "Combat Freighter".
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 24, 2012, 07:40:59 PM
Condor still has 120 cargo space, more than enough for me to survive in the early stages of campaign play.  But then again, it has next to no armament. :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on July 24, 2012, 07:43:24 PM
Combat Freighters:
Condor, Buffalo Mk. II, Hound, and now the Mule

Condor: not a freighter, a former freighter converted to a carrier - no longer fills freighter role.
Buffalo Mk. II: poor cargo capacity, no longer a freighter
Hound: Fair enough, but it's a frigate :)

The Mule retains significant cargo capacity and combines it with respectable firepower and strong defenses - that's what I mean when I say "Combat Freighter".

If it's like a Venture-lite, I am going to like it!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 24, 2012, 07:52:18 PM
getCredits() returns a MutableValue (which is a SF-specific class, not a general Java one). MutableValue has a few methods: get(), add(), subtract(), and set().

So you could do:
getCredits().get() to get the actual number
getCredits().set(1000) to set it to 1000
getCredits().add(500) to add 500 credits. That's actually a convenience method, equivalent to getCredits().set(getCredits().get() + 500).

Does that make sense?

It would probably be more intuitive to just have getCredits(), setCredits(), addCredits(), etc in CargoAPI. I ended up doing it this way to avoid having to code up all these extra methods (and instead expose MutableValues) but in retrospect it may have been a mistake. It certainly complicates things a bit.
Yes, it makes perfect sense; thanks for explaining. And honestly I don't see much of a difference between the two ways of handling the modification of credits, either one would work just as well in my eyes. But then again, I'm used to complicated and unintuitive processes from modding other games, so I guess I'm hardened against that sort of thing :P


Edit:

If it's like a Venture-lite, I am going to like it!
Lol @ that name. Damn, now I'm going to mentally call it that from now on.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 24, 2012, 09:30:53 PM
So will the Ox Frigate Freighter be in the game Alex, or the larger fuel ships?  I can't imagine that it would take as much time since they're all civilian and they already have sprites made for them.  Also what is the status on the weird ship with the purple cosmic armor?


(http://i.imgur.com/hQYoG.png)

Is it another phase ship, or does it belong to another faction or what?



Also, will any of the new weapon systems still in the game's graphics files make it in?  Gorgon, Hydra, VLRM, etc.  Same goes with the other ships that have graphics but no data such as the 'Heavy Escort' fighter.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Dri on July 24, 2012, 10:08:01 PM
The Mule is a destroyer, right? 5500 hull puts it at the very top, even above the Enforcer. Course, it doesn't have near the weapon systems but its still pretty neat to have a freighter rocking such defense - in other space games the freighters usually have paper-thin defense.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 24, 2012, 11:10:51 PM
another vulture? oh god the balancing issues are multiplying  :P

the vulture is already crazy FP efficient in terms of cargo and it packs plenty of firepower and armor on top of it, also has a flight deck and is pretty cheap for what it is, not sure if its such a good idea to have another one like it. There has to be some trade off eh, or you make the normal freighters useless. I suggest giving the normal freighters much more cargo, with the exception of the atlas. they are just so fragile to hold so little for so much FP, and the destroyer sized ones dont really get the whole high speed thing that a frigate would to make the fp worth it.


Ps. forgot i was talking about starfarer mid post when i noticed both the mad dog and the atlas lurking around my thoughts. Too much mechwarrior living legends, i suppose.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 25, 2012, 03:24:14 AM
another vulture? oh god the balancing issues are multiplying  :P

the vulture is already crazy FP efficient in terms of cargo and it packs plenty of firepower and armor on top of it, also has a flight deck and is pretty cheap for what it is, not sure if its such a good idea to have another one like it. There has to be some trade off eh, or you make the normal freighters useless. I suggest giving the normal freighters much more cargo, with the exception of the atlas. they are just so fragile to hold so little for so much FP, and the destroyer sized ones dont really get the whole high speed thing that a frigate would to make the fp worth it.


Ps. forgot i was talking about starfarer mid post when i noticed both the mad dog and the atlas lurking around my thoughts. Too much mechwarrior living legends, i suppose.

There is no ship called the Vulture :p
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: hydremajor on July 25, 2012, 03:26:23 AM
The mule reminds me of an overgrown lasher...and has about the same firepower a lasher has by the looks of it -_-
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Catattack998 on July 25, 2012, 03:53:18 AM
@Hydremajor: Y'know what, it just about does!

@Faiter119: I think he meant Venture. It fits the description.

@Alex: I have a question/request. Can phase ships retreat while phased? And I know this sounds silly, but can you make sure that doesn't cause a crash/error? My playtester-senses are tingling. :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 25, 2012, 05:47:14 AM
another vulture? oh god the balancing issues are multiplying  :P

the vulture is already crazy FP efficient in terms of cargo and it packs plenty of firepower and armor on top of it, also has a flight deck and is pretty cheap for what it is, not sure if its such a good idea to have another one like it. There has to be some trade off eh, or you make the normal freighters useless. I suggest giving the normal freighters much more cargo, with the exception of the atlas. they are just so fragile to hold so little for so much FP, and the destroyer sized ones dont really get the whole high speed thing that a frigate would to make the fp worth it.


Ps. forgot i was talking about starfarer mid post when i noticed both the mad dog and the atlas lurking around my thoughts. Too much mechwarrior living legends, i suppose.

There is no ship called the Vulture :p

Yeah, i meant the venture. too much mechwarrior.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2012, 08:29:10 AM
Yes, it makes perfect sense; thanks for explaining. And honestly I don't see much of a difference between the two ways of handling the modification of credits, either one would work just as well in my eyes. But then again, I'm used to complicated and unintuitive processes from modding other games, so I guess I'm hardened against that sort of thing :P

Cool. If you do think of something else that would help, please mention it - either here or via PM.

So will the Ox Frigate Freighter be in the game Alex, or the larger fuel ships?  I can't imagine that it would take as much time since they're all civilian and they already have sprites made for them.  Also what is the status on the weird ship with the purple cosmic armor?

The large fuel ship sprites aren't actually done - what you see on that armada screenshot is scaled-down concept art, even though it looks more sprite-y than you'd expect. Actually... this reminds me, the medium tanker is done. Not much incentive to put it in because fuel isn't used yet, but I ought to do it now so I don't forget again :)

The Ox - maybe. Have to see how the concept for it fits (it was originally meant as a tug). It may just become a freighter, but we'll see.

(http://i.imgur.com/hQYoG.png)

Is it another phase ship, or does it belong to another faction or what?

Early concept of a phase ship.

Also, will any of the new weapon systems still in the game's graphics files make it in?  Gorgon, Hydra, VLRM, etc.  Same goes with the other ships that have graphics but no data such as the 'Heavy Escort' fighter.

These are on the long-term-when/if-I-get-a-chance TODO list. So, no promises either way, but I haven't forgotten about these - and might take a crack at one or two if time permits before the next release.


@Alex: I have a question/request. Can phase ships retreat while phased? And I know this sounds silly, but can you make sure that doesn't cause a crash/error? My playtester-senses are tingling. :P

Yeah, that works fine. Tested just to be sure, because I'm paranoid :)

The Mule is a destroyer, right? 5500 hull puts it at the very top, even above the Enforcer. Course, it doesn't have near the weapon systems but its still pretty neat to have a freighter rocking such defense - in other space games the freighters usually have paper-thin defense.

Yep, destroyer-sized.

another vulture? oh god the balancing issues are multiplying  :P

the vulture is already crazy FP efficient in terms of cargo and it packs plenty of firepower and armor on top of it, also has a flight deck and is pretty cheap for what it is, not sure if its such a good idea to have another one like it. There has to be some trade off eh, or you make the normal freighters useless. I suggest giving the normal freighters much more cargo, with the exception of the atlas. they are just so fragile to hold so little for so much FP, and the destroyer sized ones dont really get the whole high speed thing that a frigate would to make the fp worth it.


Ps. forgot i was talking about starfarer mid post when i noticed both the mad dog and the atlas lurking around my thoughts. Too much mechwarrior living legends, i suppose.

The thing that confused me the most here is at one point we did plan a Vulture, which would be a combat conversion of the Tarsus (like the Condor is a carrier conversion). So I immediately started thinking whether this was something that was talked about in public :)

The Mule has less cargo capacity, requires more crew, and is less fuel efficient (useless as a tradeoff right now, of course). Finer-grained balance is just going to have to wait until the campaign is mostly done - I can easily see other mechanics emerging that would affect the desirability  of any given hull.

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 25, 2012, 08:43:47 AM
Vulture?  I'd like to have seen that, but oh well. :)
Anyways, I find that crew tends to be a game changer.  More crew means more battles before you have to go and restock them.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 25, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
Vulture?  I'd like to have seen that, but oh well. :)
Anyways, I find that crew tends to be a game changer.  More crew means more battles before you have to go and restock them.
It can save your hide having enough spare crew to replace losses instantly - you could lose to a hound if suddenly your capital or something got uncrewed

Man, I am so excited for this. It really looks like the combat is finishing up.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 25, 2012, 09:59:56 AM
@Alex: I have a question/request. Can phase ships retreat while phased? And I know this sounds silly, but can you make sure that doesn't cause a crash/error? My playtester-senses are tingling. :P

Yeah, that works fine. Tested just to be sure, because I'm paranoid :)
Hm.  Does this work if it's the player ship and you retreat by manually piloting to the map edge?  I know shielded ships will just about always drop their shields when they transition to autopilot as they go off the map - lost at least one Hyperion to that, when it couldn't get shields back up fast enough to deal with incoming missiles.  So I wouldn't be surprised if phase ships did a similar thing of being momentarily vulnerable when the autopilot turns on.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on July 25, 2012, 10:32:30 AM
The Ox - maybe. Have to see how the concept for it fits (it was originally meant as a tug). It may just become a freighter, but we'll see.

I'd really like to see Tugs in game to give your fleets greater map speed, obviously they would detach prior to an armed engagement But it would be able to compensate for that one lumbering carrier in your fleet composition with one or two tug ships, A trade off in terms of supply/fuel consumption and maximum fleet size (due to the tug FP cost) in return for greater fleet agility. Additionally if that kind of functionality is implemented, could you also arrange for very slow fighter wings to use a carriers speed if superior - provided it has at least one flight deck and sufficient carrier capacity to hold the slow fighters?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 25, 2012, 10:45:53 AM
Maybe you need a tug to dock? Or tugs help you avoid a docking fee? Or something?

I am stoked for the mule. I found my new destroyer go-to.  :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2012, 11:57:11 AM
Hm.  Does this work if it's the player ship and you retreat by manually piloting to the map edge?  I know shielded ships will just about always drop their shields when they transition to autopilot as they go off the map - lost at least one Hyperion to that, when it couldn't get shields back up fast enough to deal with incoming missiles.  So I wouldn't be surprised if phase ships did a similar thing of being momentarily vulnerable when the autopilot turns on.

Just tried that, works fine - was retreating under heavy fire and didn't turn off the cloak.

Looked at the shield AI for this and fixed that up, too - also made a couple of other shield AI enhancements.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on July 25, 2012, 12:07:50 PM
So what ship system does the Mule have, if any?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 25, 2012, 12:12:28 PM
Hm.  Does this work if it's the player ship and you retreat by manually piloting to the map edge?  I know shielded ships will just about always drop their shields when they transition to autopilot as they go off the map - lost at least one Hyperion to that, when it couldn't get shields back up fast enough to deal with incoming missiles.  So I wouldn't be surprised if phase ships did a similar thing of being momentarily vulnerable when the autopilot turns on.

Just tried that, works fine - was retreating under heavy fire and didn't turn off the cloak.

Looked at the shield AI for this and fixed that up, too - also made a couple of other shield AI enhancements.

Awesome, thanks!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 25, 2012, 12:15:37 PM
So what ship system does the Mule have, if any?

From a wee look back

The rear MG... I don't know, I think it kind of works - also, this is with the maneuvering jets on, so there's a lot more glow than usual. The ideal solution would be to add some glow bleed here ("bloom" effect) but that's not in the cards.

Seems to be shaping up to be quite the capable combat ship, possibly with the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the dedicated combat hulls?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2012, 12:22:49 PM
So what ship system does the Mule have, if any?

Maneuvering Jets - it moves like a lead-filled tub when they're off.

Seems to be shaping up to be quite the capable combat ship, possibly with the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the dedicated combat hulls?

Stand? Sure, for a while. Win? Not so much, except against frigates. Unless you outfit it really well, perhaps.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 25, 2012, 12:45:41 PM
From the sounds of that, is the flux capacity rather pathetic on it? Because I was taking my guessing from the agility the jets would provide (granted for a short time, but still something to be considered) and the exceptional hull (for a destroyer sized ship), seemed like a good combination for a rather dangerous vessel
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 25, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
From the sounds of that, is the flux capacity rather pathetic on it? Because I was taking my guessing from the agility the jets would provide (granted for a short time, but still something to be considered) and the exceptional hull (for a destroyer sized ship), seemed like a good combination for a rather dangerous vessel
Maybe so, but look with me now on this
The enforcer gets FIVE medium ballistics, and FOUR small missile slots.
The mule gets ONE energy, TWO small missile and THREE small ballistic. It's not going to be totally useful IMO, though I will say one thing - it certainly won't die too easily if you get caught out.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2012, 12:51:38 PM
Good guess :) Yeah, the flux capacity is poor. The weapons package also isn't great - a bit less than a combat frigate. It's got a lot of hull and armor, though.

Oh, and that medium slot is actually universal at the moment. Flexibility over specialization is the general mantra of that ship.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 25, 2012, 12:53:02 PM
Good guess :) Yeah, the flux capacity is poor. The weapons package also isn't great - a bit less than a combat frigate. It's got a lot of hull and armor, though.

Oh, and that medium slot is actually universal at the moment. Flexibility over specialization is the general mantra of that ship.

Ooh, more pilums!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 25, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
Good guess :) Yeah, the flux capacity is poor. The weapons package also isn't great - a bit less than a combat frigate. It's got a lot of hull and armor, though.

Oh, and that medium slot is actually universal at the moment. Flexibility over specialization is the general mantra of that ship.

Ooh, more pilums!
More like 'Salamander Pod!'
Seriously, those things OWN. Get one hit off that hurts the PD system and nothing can kite it. Too fast. So good!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 25, 2012, 01:06:08 PM
Oh, and that medium slot is actually universal at the moment. Flexibility over specialization is the general mantra of that ship.
Cooooooooooooooool. :D  Can't wait to play with it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 25, 2012, 02:24:39 PM
So will the Ox Frigate Freighter be in the game Alex, or the larger fuel ships?  I can't imagine that it would take as much time since they're all civilian and they already have sprites made for them.  Also what is the status on the weird ship with the purple cosmic armor?

The large fuel ship sprites aren't actually done - what you see on that armada screenshot is scaled-down concept art, even though it looks more sprite-y than you'd expect. Actually... this reminds me, the medium tanker is done. Not much incentive to put it in because fuel isn't used yet, but I ought to do it now so I don't forget again :)

The Ox - maybe. Have to see how the concept for it fits (it was originally meant as a tug). It may just become a freighter, but we'll see.

What is the purpose of a tug anyway?  Does it help salvage/repair ships?  Also possibly it could do both, albeit not as much as a dedicated one.

Also, will any of the new weapon systems still in the game's graphics files make it in?  Gorgon, Hydra, VLRM, etc.  Same goes with the other ships that have graphics but no data such as the 'Heavy Escort' fighter.

These are on the long-term-when/if-I-get-a-chance TODO list. So, no promises either way, but I haven't forgotten about these - and might take a crack at one or two if time permits before the next release.


Hydra looks like a medium MIRV to me, the Gorgon looks like a larger Salamander, the VLRM looks like a sabotted Pilum,  The big black torpedo looks like a capital ship killer.  What were these intended to be?


Also, any chance we'll see the Claw, Sentinel, or Heavy Escort ships?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: zakastra on July 25, 2012, 11:12:53 PM
A tug is a relatively small ship, that is pretty much 100% engine and a strongly reinforced hull, so named because they "tug" (pull) on other ships and pull them along. In real life They are generally used for towing large but not very maneuverable ships into port, or dry-docks. In some settings they are used for Accelerating craft beyond their natural capacities for speed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: cp252 on July 26, 2012, 01:32:44 AM
The Mule looks just like the Venture. Perhaps all utility ships will look like those from now on. (apart from the Buffalo and Atlas, which appear to be nicely-painted commercial cargo haulers..)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 26, 2012, 06:12:17 PM
I always thought VLRM stood for "Very Long Range Missile".  Guess I was wrong. ;D
And Gorgon looks like a multi-stage MIRV for some reason.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on July 26, 2012, 07:13:32 PM
I always thought VLRM stood for "Very Long Range Missile".  Guess I was wrong. ;D

Probably does, but it's first stage is like the pilum's but then it becomes a sabot-round I believe from what I see in the folders.  That gives it the range of a pilum with the accuracy of a sabot.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Sweetraveparty on July 26, 2012, 09:40:49 PM
This is going to be really awesome! Can't wait for this update  :D
Keep up the amazing work! :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 27, 2012, 02:09:47 AM
I always thought VLRM stood for "Very Long Range Missile".  Guess I was wrong. ;D
And Gorgon looks like a multi-stage MIRV for some reason.

Like the thunder MIRV? :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Starlight on July 27, 2012, 08:30:37 AM
Grief, this is all very exciting and I can't wait for it to be released.  These two months have been a painful wait.  Fortunately I've been distracted by Endless Space for the time being.  ^.^

Looking forwards to phase cloaking, I'm a little disappointed that it's no longer for the sake of invisibility - I was sort of planning a lot of my Jade Claw Cartel faction around that.  I'll think of something else to do with their Ship System slots though, I'm sure. z: )  Really looking forwards to seeing what modders get to play around with.  I can definitely understand the AI constraints.  In other games featuring cloaking, like Spaz, it seems that the AI has real trouble respecting your cloaked status and merely cuts it down to 'wont shoot at you until it's uncannily managed to get you in range.'

The alterations to the Tachyon Lance seem reasonable and I've even built one of my newer frigates around this new balance.  I definitely agree that any strategy that grants a 'definite wins' generally needs a downgrade to 'usually wins' (like any well-realised strategy.)   My only concern is self-interested.  My biggest gun is balanced against the Tachyon Laser.  The Firestorm does 800 dps for 800 fps and 30 OP, which I was pleased to have lower then the TL, but with only 500 range and the slowest traverse of any weapon, I figured it was reasonable.  If that sort of damage is too high, that's a rebalance nightmare for me.    Oh well.  I imagine that'll be the least of my troubles, come the Day of Patch.  z: )
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 27, 2012, 06:16:17 PM
Two months is a painful wait. ;D
You'll find out when the patch comes out soon.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 27, 2012, 06:50:45 PM
Ooh, a combat freighter, interesting. Any chance we could get a screenshot?

And, what sort of new things did you add to the CampaignFleetAPI and FleetMemberAPI files? I'd love to know.

Working on the screenshot - reinstalling Photoshop as we speak so I can make it into a jpeg :)

CampaignFleetAPI:
Spoiler

   void setLocation(float x, float y);
   
   boolean isAlive();
   
   void addAssignment(FleetAssignment assignment, SectorEntityToken target, float maxDurationInDays);
   void addAssignment(FleetAssignment assignment, SectorEntityToken target, float maxDurationInDays, Script onCompletion);
   void clearAssignments();
   void setPreferredResupplyLocation(SectorEntityToken token);
   
   
   FactionAPI getFaction();
   Vector2f getVelocity();
   Vector2f getLocation();

   PersonAPI getCommander();
   List<FleetMemberAPI> getMembersListCopy();
   List<FleetMemberAPI> getCombatReadyMembersListCopy();
   FleetMemberAPI getFlagship();
   int getFleetPoints();
   boolean isPlayerFleet();
   void addFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
   void removeFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
   
   
   void setName(String name);
   float getTotalSupplyCostPerDay();
   int getNumCapitals();
   int getNumCruisers();
   int getNumDestroyers();
   int getNumFrigates();
   int getNumFighters();
   
   float getTravelSpeed();
[close]

FleetMemberAPI:
Spoiler

   PersonAPI getCaptain();
   void setCrewXPLevel(CargoAPI.CrewXPLevel crewXP);
   
   
   String getShipName();
   void setShipName(String name);
   
   String getSpecId();
   FleetMemberType getType();
   
   boolean isFlagship();
   
   int getNumFlightDecks();
   boolean isCarrier();
   boolean isCivilian();
   void setFlagship(boolean isFlagship);
   int getFleetPointCost();
   boolean isFighterWing();
   boolean isFrigate();
   boolean isDestroyer();
   boolean isCruiser();
   boolean isCapital();
   CargoAPI.CrewXPLevel getCrewXPLevel();
   float getFuelCapacity();
   float getCargoCapacity();
   float getMinCrew();
   float getNeededCrew();
   float getMaxCrew();
   float getFuelUse();
   float getHangarSpace();
   float getBaseValue();
[close]

Any requests?

Could we have a removeMothballedShip method for the cargo API? It would let us have modded AI fleets purchase ships from stations or otherwise regulate their inventories.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 27, 2012, 07:08:31 PM
Could we have a removeMothballedShip method for the cargo API? It would let us have modded AI fleets purchase ships from stations or otherwise regulate their inventories.
I second this; it would certainly be useful in some situations.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 27, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Done.

As part of this, extracted:
Spoiler

List<FleetMemberAPI> getMembersListCopy();
List<FleetMemberAPI> getCombatReadyMembersListCopy();
int getFleetPoints();
void addFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
void removeFleetMember(FleetMemberAPI member);
[close]
into a FleetDataAPI interface.

Added
FleetDataAPI CargoAPI.getMothballedShips()

and
FleetDataAPI CampaignFleetAPI.getFleetData()


This way, you can also look at what ships are currently mothballed. Retained (but @Deprecated) CargoAPI.addMothballedShip().
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on July 27, 2012, 07:48:33 PM
Awesome, thank you!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 27, 2012, 08:08:55 PM
Awesome, thanks very much!

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 27, 2012, 09:59:09 PM
Were you planning on disclosing the phase hull's names before release?

Mostly wondering because I have no idea if I want to know yet or not. Knowing now is awesome b/c I want to know. But waiting is like a Christmas present.  :)

EDIT:
Spoiler
Wait, I just noticed the cruiser is called the Doom class according to the screenie in the blog post. I really dig that.  :D
[close]
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 27, 2012, 11:23:39 PM
Cool! more content!

Still eagerly awaiting the next version (at which point I will probably return to modding, but I have a stupidly massive to-do list, so...)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 28, 2012, 02:31:09 AM
Were you planning on disclosing the phase hull's names before release?

Mostly wondering because I have no idea if I want to know yet or not. Knowing now is awesome b/c I want to know. But waiting is like a Christmas present.  :)

EDIT:
Spoiler
Wait, I just noticed the cruiser is called the Doom class according to the screenie in the blog post. I really dig that.  :D
[close]

Alex has already disclosed the names -.- In the blog post i believe it was the Doom, Spectre and ... ... something i dont remember.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 28, 2012, 07:29:26 AM
I didn't see and you didn't quote it, so I don't believe you. :p
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on July 28, 2012, 08:23:46 AM
I didn't see and you didn't quote it, so I don't believe you. :p

The quote from Alex is somewhere in the last 10-15 pages of this thread.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 28, 2012, 08:59:05 AM
Doom, Shade, and Afflictor.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 28, 2012, 09:10:32 AM
I have to ask - will phase weapons ever be able to hit phase ships? Or can we modders make custom weapons that hit them? That'd be cool :D

And as for phase flux buildup, is it possible to limit the flux generated? :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 28, 2012, 09:17:42 AM
I have to ask - will phase weapons ever be able to hit phase ships? Or can we modders make custom weapons that hit them? That'd be cool :D

Phase weapons? What's that? (Before you interpret this as a literal question: What I'm saying is anti-phase weapons, as a class, don't exist in the game.)

And as for phase flux buildup, is it possible to limit the flux generated? :D

Yes, that's configurable per ship.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 28, 2012, 09:52:27 AM
Doom, Shade, and Afflictor.

Ah Shade it was, not Spectre... But Spectre is an awesome name...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on July 28, 2012, 10:12:53 AM
Doom, Shade, and Afflictor.

Aww dammit, now I have to change the name of one of my fighter types :P
Though truth be told, it didn't make much sense for it, so it's probably a good thing
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on July 28, 2012, 12:59:15 PM
I have to ask - will phase weapons ever be able to hit phase ships? Or can we modders make custom weapons that hit them? That'd be cool :D

Phase weapons? What's that? (Before you interpret this as a literal question: What I'm saying is anti-phase weapons, as a class, don't exist in the game.)


Well, that's the purple weapons in the game, like the phase beam. But what i meant to ask was if there was way to make anti-phase ship weapons? :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 28, 2012, 02:56:07 PM
Doom, Shade, and Afflictor.
Coooooooooooooooool.  :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on July 28, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
The only name I have a problem with is Doom. For some reason I just can't take that name seriously.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on July 28, 2012, 05:03:22 PM
Im not much of a fan of the name either. What about wraith?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on July 28, 2012, 05:14:19 PM
So if you are fighting a Phase Cruiser with a frigate. you can just park on top of it and there is nothing it can do? It will just overload and you are free to attack it?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 28, 2012, 05:19:25 PM
Well, hmm.  Seems like a good idea, but it will probably bounce out of the frigate before that happens.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 28, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
I have to ask - will phase weapons ever be able to hit phase ships? Or can we modders make custom weapons that hit them? That'd be cool :D

Phase weapons? What's that? (Before you interpret this as a literal question: What I'm saying is anti-phase weapons, as a class, don't exist in the game.)


Well, that's the purple weapons in the game, like the phase beam. But what i meant to ask was if there was way to make anti-phase ship weapons? :D
They are being renamed & re-purposed to be normal weapons.

I doubt it unless Alex is pestered enough to code in that functionality, since he had already decided to not implemented in mainline.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 28, 2012, 08:40:38 PM
I have to ask - will phase weapons ever be able to hit phase ships? Or can we modders make custom weapons that hit them? That'd be cool :D

Phase weapons? What's that? (Before you interpret this as a literal question: What I'm saying is anti-phase weapons, as a class, don't exist in the game.)


Well, that's the purple weapons in the game, like the phase beam. But what i meant to ask was if there was way to make anti-phase ship weapons? :D
They are being renamed & re-purposed to be normal weapons.

I doubt it unless Alex is pestered enough to code in that functionality, since he had already decided to not implemented in mainline.

I doubt that pestering would induce me to implement something that requires significant engine and AI changes to work properly :)


So if you are fighting a Phase Cruiser with a frigate. you can just park on top of it and there is nothing it can do? It will just overload and you are free to attack it?
Well, hmm.  Seems like a good idea, but it will probably bounce out of the frigate before that happens.

Yes, that - there's a constant force acting to push away the smaller ship in this case. You might force an overload by a well-timed fly-by, but you won't (or at least, shouldn't!) be able to just stay on top of a larger ship while it's phased.


The only name I have a problem with is Doom. For some reason I just can't take that name seriously.
Im not much of a fan of the name either. What about wraith?

Ah, you know, I felt a little odd about it for a bit but got used to it. It does convey the intent of the ship's design, considering it's got extremely scary forward-facing armaments.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 28, 2012, 10:04:56 PM
.... must.... see.... DOOM ship. forward facing extreme weapons

im already fantasizing about them.

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/arwan2/mgwhore.gif)
like this

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/arwan2/plasmawhore.gif)
or like this

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/arwan2/angel3.gif)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Strifen on July 28, 2012, 10:25:04 PM
So if you are fighting a Phase Cruiser with a frigate. you can just park on top of it and there is nothing it can do? It will just overload and you are free to attack it?
Well, hmm.  Seems like a good idea, but it will probably bounce out of the frigate before that happens.

Yes, that - there's a constant force acting to push away the smaller ship in this case. You might force an overload by a well-timed fly-by, but you won't (or at least, shouldn't!) be able to just stay on top of a larger ship while it's phased.
Can't wait to see how the force mechanic is affected by mass, or how a modded small, tough shielded rammer ship with lots-of-mass tries it...

  Also, it seems modding in a ship with 0 shield efficiency and 3 shield upkeep [which I call AEGIS due to not finding it/a name in the forum] would result in a ship that plays similarly to the proposed phase ship, so others could try that if they want to possibly get a handle on how phase ships may feel.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 29, 2012, 12:33:48 AM
Yeah, I suspected as much, hence the 'enough' modifier, where 'enough' is an infinite value XP
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on July 29, 2012, 01:03:15 PM
A couple of things I've thought would be nice to have in the game:
Modifiable Drones, the ability to choose the weapons that your Ship System drones have, this is mainly to make drones a more interesting Ship Sytem given that they would be able to be armed with modded weapons, thus tying them in with a modded fleet, an good example of this could be if a fleets  beam weapons are all blue, and they want Laser PD drones the standard LR PD Laser would look out of place with its orange beam.
Another thing I'd like to see is "Direct fire" turret mounts, as in turrets that can mount Ballistic/Energy weapons but Not missiles, similar to Omni mounts, but not quite as flexible, seeing how missiles fill a completely different role to Ballistic/Energy weapons. I would want this so that more advanced ships can have the option of using ballistic or Energy weapons rather than being limited to one type without having to use Omni mounts and being able to be made into a missile boat which might not fit in with the style of the ship.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 29, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
Drones can be modified via the .ship file for it.  New drones can even be made.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on July 29, 2012, 01:21:57 PM
Ah, just saw his post on that, silly me ::)
But my point of more control(?) over weapon mounts still stands, maybe even have it so you have 3 check boxes [or something similar] to determine what weapons can be mounted in a turret/hardpoint, could make for some interesting ship loadouts.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 29, 2012, 01:29:38 PM
I don't see anything wrong with 'Direct Fire' mounts? It would be a challenge to make ships designs that use them without being overpowered but thats true for the universal mounts as well.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2012, 01:37:29 PM
Yeah, direct fire mounts are an interesting idea. Actually something I've been mulling over in the back of my head for a while, for much the same reasons.

Not sure if it adds enough to warrant the extra complexity, though - and then there's always that if you make a change like that, you've got to go back through all the ships and look where it's appropriate to add, consider balance issues, etc. Development-progress-wise, it's getting to a point where combat has to get pretty well locked down.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 29, 2012, 01:42:38 PM
Direct fire would work admirably on midlines.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2012, 01:50:40 PM
Direct fire would work admirably on midlines.

Given the ships involved, it'd probably just lead to these mounts being used for ballistics.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 29, 2012, 01:52:19 PM
Direct fire would work admirably on midlines.

Given the ships involved, it'd probably just lead to these mounts being used for ballistics.
:3
Indeed.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on July 29, 2012, 02:09:31 PM
I'd been thinking of using them as a more variable PD mount, with say Light Machineguns as standard, but can be improved to Burst PD Lasers if you have the OPs spare, as an example.
It would not be a hugely important thing to add, but would possibly be a nice extra feature.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Muffel on July 29, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
Hmmm... maybe don't implement it into vanilla ships, so it doesn't cost development time, but make it so that modders can make mounts which can only use ballistics and missiles or only energy and ballistic, so let the code look like this:

Code
[?]
{
      "angle": "0",
      "arc": "90",
      "id": "WS 012",
      "locations": [
        73,
        0
      ],
      "mount": "TURRET",
      "size": "SMALL",
    >>"type": "BALLISTIC, ENERGY"<<
    }
[?]

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Archduke Astro on July 29, 2012, 03:22:53 PM
Drones can be modified via the .ship file for it.  New drones can even be made.

Then it sounds as if some form of this ambitious old hope (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2013.0) might finally come true. [austinpowers] Yeah, baby! [/austinpowers] ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
Spoiler
Hmmm... maybe don't implement it into vanilla ships, so it doesn't cost development time, but make it so that modders can make mounts which can only use ballistics and missiles or only energy and ballistic, so let the code look like this:

Code
[?]
{
      "angle": "0",
      "arc": "90",
      "id": "WS 012",
      "locations": [
        73,
        0
      ],
      "mount": "TURRET",
      "size": "SMALL",
    >>"type": "BALLISTIC, ENERGY"<<
    }
[?]

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
[close]

I see what you're saying, but that's not all there is to it - there's also the refit UI to consider here (that's the main thing, really - since you can already put whatever weapons you want into whatever type of slot, in a mod). And the fact that not being in the vanilla game, it wouldn't get any significant testing - and would thus be prone to bugs, breaking with a new version, etc.

Then it sounds as if some form of this ambitious old hope (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2013.0) might finally come true. [austinpowers] Yeah, baby! [/austinpowers] ;D

Ah, yes - that's actually the intent behind the "gorgon" and "hydra" missile sprites that aren't used for anything but are found in the game's graphics folder. Not sure when/if I'll get to it, though - it's more of a neat idea/extra than a core thing :) Hmm. Drones do sound like a pretty good approximation for this, though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 29, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
Direct Fire?  What's that?  Haven't been around here enough to know that. :)

EDIT:
And speaking of development and non-combat parts of the game, any specific parts going to be worked on after this patch?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 29, 2012, 06:07:55 PM
one thing i would like to be able to do is to specify  a ship for escort.

i like flying the Hyperion and have a Tempest as escort.

but i can not if i have fighter wings because the game will assign me a fighter wing instead of the Tempest.
which means i don't use fighters.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 29, 2012, 06:12:52 PM
Mirco-managing id left to your "subordinates," the AI.  it determines the best ship for the job.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 29, 2012, 06:14:53 PM
Mirco-managing id left to your "subordinates," the AI.  it determines the best ship for the job.

well,

me and the AI have a difference of opinions on this.   ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2012, 07:53:21 PM
Direct Fire?  What's that?  Haven't been around here enough to know that. :)

Direct Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_fire)

one thing i would like to be able to do is to specify  a ship for escort.

i like flying the Hyperion and have a Tempest as escort.

but i can not if i have fighter wings because the game will assign me a fighter wing instead of the Tempest.
which means i don't use fighters.
Mirco-managing id left to your "subordinates," the AI.  it determines the best ship for the job.

well,

me and the AI have a difference of opinions on this.   ;)

Fair enough :) Without going into too much detail, this is something I'd like to handle better. I think the concern you bring up is a valid one (and comes up in some other situations). I've got some thoughts on how to address it - but nothing that's definite enough that I can really talk about.

Also: hi, and welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on July 29, 2012, 08:09:03 PM
That direct fire?  I know that one easily enough.  Thought it was something else, but I don't see the difference.

Anyways, any features like that, I have no problem with so long it doesn't have a large effect on gameplay.  Add it in. :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on July 29, 2012, 09:47:54 PM
Well, I had said Direct Fire as a reference to what a Ballistic/Energy weapon slot is called in Mechwarrior4.

Having Hidden missile mounts on some of my ships it's kind of disappointing how some regular missile weapons will display the missiles even if the mount is hidden, I get that this is for fighters where the weapon mount is not needed but the missile is, but a MRM Pod is Extremely unlikely to be mounted on a Fighter, so possibly some of the missile weapons could have RENDER_LOADED_MISSILES_UNLESS_HIDDEN rather than RENDER_LOADED_MISSILES, to allow for such mountings to be viable.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 30, 2012, 03:02:42 AM
Hm. Maybe with micro managing just for two or so extra clicks (or even predetermined in the options menu) you can set 'escort behaviour: automatic (ai handles like it does now) and manual (brings up a list of ships, on full escort it's a tickbox system).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 30, 2012, 03:42:24 AM
Direct Fire?  What's that?  Haven't been around here enough to know that. :)

Direct Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_fire)

one thing i would like to be able to do is to specify  a ship for escort.

i like flying the Hyperion and have a Tempest as escort.

but i can not if i have fighter wings because the game will assign me a fighter wing instead of the Tempest.
which means i don't use fighters.
Mirco-managing id left to your "subordinates," the AI.  it determines the best ship for the job.

well,

me and the AI have a difference of opinions on this.   ;)

Fair enough :) Without going into too much detail, this is something I'd like to handle better. I think the concern you bring up is a valid one (and comes up in some other situations). I've got some thoughts on how to address it - but nothing that's definite enough that I can really talk about.

Also: hi, and welcome to the forum!

tnx Alex!

congratulations on this jewel of a game.

at my age, i have played lots of games.
Starfarer is one of the very best i have played so far.
even at this Alpha stage.

just bloody amazing!  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 30, 2012, 07:39:24 AM
Having Hidden missile mounts on some of my ships it's kind of disappointing how some regular missile weapons will display the missiles even if the mount is hidden, I get that this is for fighters where the weapon mount is not needed but the missile is, but a MRM Pod is Extremely unlikely to be mounted on a Fighter, so possibly some of the missile weapons could have RENDER_LOADED_MISSILES_UNLESS_HIDDEN rather than RENDER_LOADED_MISSILES, to allow for such mountings to be viable.

Hidden slots are really just meant to be used on fighters. Gameplay-wise, the player needs to be able to see what they're up against. With a fighter, you know that because their loadouts can't change. With a ship, you need to be able to see all the weapons.

I can see using hidden slots in a TC-style mod, but if you're aiming for something that works nicely with vanilla, that's not a great idea. Also, consider this: missiles would just pop into existence in this case. For a weapon that always works that way (i.e. the Swarmer), you can set up some smoke to hide the missiles showing up. For weapons that rely on the missile being visible prior to launch, making it hidden would result in a visual abnormality when you fire. Not horrible, but not good either.

All that being said, since you're making a mod, it'd be easy enough for that mod to also convert whatever vanilla weapons you like to use RENDER_LOADED_MISSILES_UNLESS_HIDDEN.

tnx Alex!

congratulations on this jewel of a game.

at my age, i have played lots of games.
Starfarer is one of the very best i have played so far.
even at this Alpha stage.

just bloody amazing!  :)

Thank you! Really happy you're enjoying it :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on July 30, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
Okay, i get what you mean with hidden weapons and how having weapons visible makes identifying variants easier.
Another thing that came up for me was I tried adding a drone wing of 8 fighters, but it crashed the game as soon as I entered a battle with them, could
you possibly expand the maximum size of fighter wings, assuming this is an engine limitation and not a bug.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 30, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
Six is the fighter wing size limit. I don't see changing that, honestly - seems plenty high for most purposes, and would be quite a pain to change.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 30, 2012, 02:05:03 PM
Six is the fighter wing size limit. I don't see changing that, honestly - seems plenty high for most purposes, and would be quite a pain to change.

yes, that's quite enough i think.

if i might be allowed one suggestion:

i find it's just a tad too easy to lure a ship (Hound and Piranha are good example) to attack you by showing your flank/rear to them for a short wile.
of course, this doesn't matter much in a multi-ships engagement, as you are surrounded anyway.
it's more noticeable in a fight versus 1 or 2 ships.

other than that, the AI is remarkable.
i think it's the best AI i have seen in an 'action' game so far.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 30, 2012, 02:07:29 PM
Six is the fighter wing size limit. I don't see changing that, honestly - seems plenty high for most purposes, and would be quite a pain to change.
i find it's just a tad too easy to lure a ship (Hound and Piranha are good example) to attack you by showing your flank/rear to them for a short wile.
I think that's a good idea, because if you "rectify" that then it won't go for the rear normally, which would be a bad move.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 30, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
Six is the fighter wing size limit. I don't see changing that, honestly - seems plenty high for most purposes, and would be quite a pain to change.
i find it's just a tad too easy to lure a ship (Hound and Piranha are good example) to attack you by showing your flank/rear to them for a short wile.
I think that's a good idea, because if you "rectify" that then it won't go for the rear normally, which would be a bad move.

i edited my previous post slightly.

anyway, i think you are right.

maybe it could be tweaked a little, i don't know.
but i understand your concern.

cheers m8!  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 30, 2012, 05:45:13 PM
if i might be allowed one suggestion:

i find it's just a tad too easy to lure a ship (Hound and Piranha are good example) to attack you by showing your flank/rear to them for a short wile.
of course, this doesn't matter much in a multi-ships engagement, as you are surrounded anyway.
it's more noticeable in a fight versus 1 or 2 ships.

other than that, the AI is remarkable.
i think it's the best AI i have seen in an 'action' game so far.

Hmm. Yeah, I see your point - but that's something that's a bit tricky to get just right. In large engagements it's actually a good behavior - since you're not as likely to actually be able to focus on the baited ship, and it could do some damage. In smaller engagements... it might not be the ideal behavior, but it's probably better than the Hound always hovering out of range :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: moontan on July 30, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
it's pretty amazing the way they spread out and try to attack you from every angle, while mounting co-ordinated assaults.

if i am at a disadvantage i like to find a nebula close by to help my defense, especially against fighters.

sneaky bastards!   ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Catattack998 on July 30, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Hey Alex, I wanted to revive discussion on the bonuses granted by hardpoints. I know you said you didn't have a strong idea on what to do with it just yet, and I think this would be a great place/time to get some ideas flowing. Personally, I think a placeholder bonus could be a 15% range bonus and a 15% max spread reduction. That being said, I think it should be different for each of the three weapon types. They would realistically benefit from the fixed positioning differently.

Bonuses that I have been mulling over:
- Ballistic: 10% range bonus, 20% max spread reduction, and 20% spread reset speed increase (from having a longer and more sturdily mounted barrel)
- Missile: 15% reload time reduction and 30% launch speed bonus (from having a more optimized reloading mechanism, and a longer/heavier launch tube)
- Energy, non-beam: 15% range bonus and 15% damage bonus (having wires that don't need to move allows for higher efficiency)
- Energy, beam: 25% range bonus and 25% damage bonus (a non-moving mount can have MUCH more precise optics)

Now, my intent is to give missile weapons the least bonuses, as they are generally expected to use hardpoints, and this would give the incentive to use non-missile weapons in universal hardpoints (my attempt at balance). Realistically, I feel that beam weapons (and energy weapons in general) would benefit most from this, as ballistic weapons are built with recoil in mind, which is similar to forces from turning a weapon. Laser systems don't have to deal with recoil (as they are not firing shots with significant mass), and would have to make a larger trade-off.

For in-game terms, the high bonuses to beam weapons somewhat counteract the awkwardness of having several beam hardpoints. Some ships accomplish it well, when it is their main weapon, but beam weapons are still (even after the bonuses) not better than non-beam weapons. All this aside, I don't consider my suggestions fully fleshed-out or balanced, but a stepping stone to start discussion.

I have one final question, unconnected with hardpoints. I want to know, what was the reason to not have weapons' spread return to normal while they are reloading? It seems to me that larger, slow-firing weapons (the Heavy Mauler comes to mind) should be quite accurate because they have a lot of time between each shot. But, the spread grows and grows while they are firing, until they are very inaccurate. Finally, if I let off firing for under one second, the spread returns to default. It just somewhat breaks immersion to see the spread stay at full spread while it is reloading, but shrink fully in the blink of an eye once it is finished reloading.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on July 30, 2012, 08:34:59 PM
i had an idea come to me when you said 6 was the fighter wing size limit Alex.

what if when you get around to making the skill tree for your avatar in the game one of the skills would be a way to increase the number of fighters in fighter wings that have 2, 3 or 4 fighters. by say 1 or 2 fighters. i think this could be a novel way for the aspiring carrier captain to help his fighters become greater force multipliers, of course i would also imagine these skills to be at the end of a skill tree and not something you could get easy.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on July 30, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
I would love to have hullmods that specifically enhanced hardpoints, even if only for modding: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1864.0

An expensive rate of fire or range bonus would be interesting to give the player for the Onslaught and Dominator. Those two frontal hardpoints could be made really killer at the expense of other systems.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on July 30, 2012, 11:38:55 PM
IIRC hullmods are actually defined by their effects & ability to apply them, letting you mod in custom ones. We can already do range bonuses, not sure about ROF though; also not sure if it can be limited to just hardpoints/turrets/etc
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Okim on July 31, 2012, 12:55:41 AM
Bonuses that I have been mulling over:
- Ballistic: 10% range bonus, 20% max spread reduction, and 20% spread reset speed increase (from having a longer and more sturdily mounted barrel)
- Missile: 15% reload time reduction and 30% launch speed bonus (from having a more optimized reloading mechanism, and a longer/heavier launch tube)
- Energy, non-beam: 15% range bonus and 15% damage bonus (having wires that don't need to move allows for higher efficiency)
- Energy, beam: 25% range bonus and 25% damage bonus (a non-moving mount can have MUCH more precise optics)

I would rather give missiles just few extra ammo (say, +20-25%). Since you don`t need a complex reload system that has to be adopted for rotating launcher - you can have some extra space for missiles. This won`t have a powerful impact of 3-ammo launchers, but would benefit annihilator-type rocket launchers and other launchers with lots of ammo.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: WKOB on July 31, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
Quote
Can now specify custom engine glow color and contrail data (see data/shipsystems/proj/flare_standard.proj for example)
Out of curiosity will this be defined with the .ship or will the .ship reference a hypothetical lowtech_fighter.engine?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Starlight on July 31, 2012, 05:32:37 AM
The thing I would most like to see for missiles would be [RENDER_BELOW_TURRET] and [RENDER_BELOW_HULL] tags.  Those would be really useful in general but would make hidden missile mounts a lot better, especially on fighters.  It would be nice to make missile launchers which hun their missiles under arms and poking out from launch mechanisms.   Fighters it could have the most dramatic impact upon, since you can then have missiles poking out from under wings and such, rather then lying clumsily on top. 
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: phyrex on July 31, 2012, 10:56:21 AM
Bonuses that I have been mulling over:
- Ballistic: 10% range bonus, 20% max spread reduction, and 20% spread reset speed increase (from having a longer and more sturdily mounted barrel)
- Missile: 15% reload time reduction and 30% launch speed bonus (from having a more optimized reloading mechanism, and a longer/heavier launch tube)
- Energy, non-beam: 15% range bonus and 15% damage bonus (having wires that don't need to move allows for higher efficiency)
- Energy, beam: 25% range bonus and 25% damage bonus (a non-moving mount can have MUCH more precise optics)

I would rather give missiles just few extra ammo (say, +20-25%). Since you don`t need a complex reload system that has to be adopted for rotating launcher - you can have some extra space for missiles. This won`t have a powerful impact of 3-ammo launchers, but would benefit annihilator-type rocket launchers and other launchers with lots of ammo.

both the original idea and the missile idea update are really good, i like it.
they even make sense, which i find even better
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 31, 2012, 12:23:00 PM
Spoiler
Hey Alex, I wanted to revive discussion on the bonuses granted by hardpoints. I know you said you didn't have a strong idea on what to do with it just yet, and I think this would be a great place/time to get some ideas flowing. Personally, I think a placeholder bonus could be a 15% range bonus and a 15% max spread reduction. That being said, I think it should be different for each of the three weapon types. They would realistically benefit from the fixed positioning differently.

Bonuses that I have been mulling over:
- Ballistic: 10% range bonus, 20% max spread reduction, and 20% spread reset speed increase (from having a longer and more sturdily mounted barrel)
- Missile: 15% reload time reduction and 30% launch speed bonus (from having a more optimized reloading mechanism, and a longer/heavier launch tube)
- Energy, non-beam: 15% range bonus and 15% damage bonus (having wires that don't need to move allows for higher efficiency)
- Energy, beam: 25% range bonus and 25% damage bonus (a non-moving mount can have MUCH more precise optics)

Now, my intent is to give missile weapons the least bonuses, as they are generally expected to use hardpoints, and this would give the incentive to use non-missile weapons in universal hardpoints (my attempt at balance). Realistically, I feel that beam weapons (and energy weapons in general) would benefit most from this, as ballistic weapons are built with recoil in mind, which is similar to forces from turning a weapon. Laser systems don't have to deal with recoil (as they are not firing shots with significant mass), and would have to make a larger trade-off.

For in-game terms, the high bonuses to beam weapons somewhat counteract the awkwardness of having several beam hardpoints. Some ships accomplish it well, when it is their main weapon, but beam weapons are still (even after the bonuses) not better than non-beam weapons. All this aside, I don't consider my suggestions fully fleshed-out or balanced, but a stepping stone to start discussion.
[close]

Well, as it stands now, hardpoints are twice as tough to disable (this is in 0.52.1a). I'm not entirely sold on going beyond that - that's a lot of extra complexity/rules the game has to explain to the player. Not to say that it's a definite no, but I'm just not sure what that gets you in the long run. You'd basically be making hardpoints a more powerful - but you could accomplish much the same by simply having more of them on a ship, and besides, existing ships are more or less tuned around the number & power of hardpoints they already have.


I have one final question, unconnected with hardpoints. I want to know, what was the reason to not have weapons' spread return to normal while they are reloading? It seems to me that larger, slow-firing weapons (the Heavy Mauler comes to mind) should be quite accurate because they have a lot of time between each shot. But, the spread grows and grows while they are firing, until they are very inaccurate. Finally, if I let off firing for under one second, the spread returns to default. It just somewhat breaks immersion to see the spread stay at full spread while it is reloading, but shrink fully in the blink of an eye once it is finished reloading.

Let's say weapon targeting systems can't be effectively re-calibrated until the weapon is loaded. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The reason the way it is now is to have an easily controlled buildup in inaccuracy from each successive shot. If it recalibrated while reloading, ALL that would do is force me to come up with a different set of numbers that would ultimately result in *exactly the same* spread by the time the weapon is loaded. And I'd have to change these numbers every time the rate of fire was adjusted. In effect, the gameplay impact of this would be right around zero, but it'd be a pain to maintain :)


i had an idea come to me when you said 6 was the fighter wing size limit Alex.

what if when you get around to making the skill tree for your avatar in the game one of the skills would be a way to increase the number of fighters in fighter wings that have 2, 3 or 4 fighters. by say 1 or 2 fighters. i think this could be a novel way for the aspiring carrier captain to help his fighters become greater force multipliers, of course i would also imagine these skills to be at the end of a skill tree and not something you could get easy.

Interesting idea. Might be hard to reconcile with the lore, though - where the fighter wing blueprints are fairly restricted in this regard.


I would love to have hullmods that specifically enhanced hardpoints, even if only for modding: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1864.0

An expensive rate of fire or range bonus would be interesting to give the player for the Onslaught and Dominator. Those two frontal hardpoints could be made really killer at the expense of other systems.

Hmm. I'll keep this in mind :)


Quote
Can now specify custom engine glow color and contrail data (see data/shipsystems/proj/flare_standard.proj for example)
Out of curiosity will this be defined with the .ship or will the .ship reference a hypothetical lowtech_fighter.engine?

In the .ship file.

The thing I would most like to see for missiles would be [RENDER_BELOW_TURRET] and [RENDER_BELOW_HULL] tags.  Those would be really useful in general but would make hidden missile mounts a lot better, especially on fighters.  It would be nice to make missile launchers which hun their missiles under arms and poking out from launch mechanisms.   Fighters it could have the most dramatic impact upon, since you can then have missiles poking out from under wings and such, rather then lying clumsily on top. 

This comes up now and again, and unfortunately I can't quick track down my previous (rather extensive) answer. Basically: rendering weapons below hulls leads to some nasty layered rendering contradictions. For example, a missile launcher is rendered under a hull, and then it fires - the missiles have to suddenly jump to the "above ships" layer, leading to visual artifacts. Similar issues for weapon glows, disabled effects, muzzle flash, smoke, etc.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on July 31, 2012, 12:28:45 PM
Well, as it stands now, hardpoints are twice as tough to disable (this is in 0.52.1a).
I didn't know that. That's pretty awesome actually.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 31, 2012, 12:34:20 PM
The thing I would most like to see for missiles would be [RENDER_BELOW_TURRET] and [RENDER_BELOW_HULL] tags.  Those would be really useful in general but would make hidden missile mounts a lot better, especially on fighters.  It would be nice to make missile launchers which hun their missiles under arms and poking out from launch mechanisms.   Fighters it could have the most dramatic impact upon, since you can then have missiles poking out from under wings and such, rather then lying clumsily on top. 

This comes up now and again, and unfortunately I can't quick track down my previous (rather extensive) answer. Basically: rendering weapons below hulls leads to some nasty layered rendering contradictions. For example, a missile launcher is rendered under a hull, and then it fires - the missiles have to suddenly jump to the "above ships" layer, leading to visual artifacts. Similar issues for weapon glows, disabled effects, muzzle flash, smoke, etc.
You actually said the problem would be if it passed through a friendly ship it would look like it was just going through it. It was in a topic relating to multiple layers. I may have a solution?
The missile launcher sticks out from under the hull, just enough that when a missile is fired, it fires in open space, though I then have no idea how hard it would be to code in a layer change. My guess is combine  having the missile launcher sticking out from under the hull, and having missiles fired onto a 'missile layer' and this layer is above ships so it passes over friendlies and it hits enemies. Seem reasonable?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 31, 2012, 01:20:39 PM
That wouldn't work because where the missile is spawned depends on the weapon, not on the weapon slot. (Deja vu - I've definitely said this before at some point. Ah, well, at least I'm consistent!)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on July 31, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
That wouldn't work because where the missile is spawned depends on the weapon, not on the weapon slot. (Deja vu - I've definitely said this before at some point. Ah, well, at least I'm consistent!)
Ah, that makes sense.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2844.0 and there's your topic, you have said this before... I think
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Wyvern on July 31, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
Actually - don't you already track the information you'd need to make a mostly-seamless transition?

  • Missiles can no longer hit the launching ship if they fizzle out, UNLESS they've left the ship's bounds at some point

You'd still get a bit of a pop as the missile's engine glow goes from below to above, but I'd think that'd actually look right.  Smoke trails might still be an issue, though.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on July 31, 2012, 01:40:27 PM
That wouldn't work because where the missile is spawned depends on the weapon, not on the weapon slot. (Deja vu - I've definitely said this before at some point. Ah, well, at least I'm consistent!)
Ah, that makes sense.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2844.0 and there's your topic, you have said this before... I think

Thanks - yep, that's the thread.

Actually - don't you already track the information you'd need to make a mostly-seamless transition?

  • Missiles can no longer hit the launching ship if they fizzle out, UNLESS they've left the ship's bounds at some point

You'd still get a bit of a pop as the missile's engine glow goes from below to above, but I'd think that'd actually look right.  Smoke trails might still be an issue, though.

There are still cases where it'd be problematic. Trails would indeed be an issue - and so would smoke - since those have their own layer. It's just a lot of complexity, a virtual guarantee of some rough edges, and ultimately nothing much to gain. It's a 2D game, and this is fighting against that. Just roll with it :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Talkie Toaster on July 31, 2012, 02:46:26 PM
Well, as it stands now, hardpoints are twice as tough to disable (this is in 0.52.1a). I'm not entirely sold on going beyond that - that's a lot of extra complexity/rules the game has to explain to the player.
Yeah, it seems like it'd make sense to add more abilities if hardpoints were competing with turrets, but they're not- they're competing with 'Not filling that slot'. The Medusa is the only ship I can think of where you might actually have hardpoints & turrets competing in some situations (the small universal & front 2 small energy for things like AM Blasters if you're using lots of high-OP gear like burst PD and can't afford to fill both).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on August 02, 2012, 01:29:52 PM
So, since the release candidate is apparently working well, is there any chance for some last-minute additions to the patch notes? I'm sure the people who don't frequent the modding section would love to know about that new shield-adding hullmod :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 02, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
Indeed, cant be to much to add after the release candidate. Mainly bug fixes I suppose.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Unwoundpath on August 02, 2012, 01:50:59 PM
Officially released!

http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/08/02/starfarer-0-53a-release/
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 01:51:19 PM
So, since the release candidate is apparently working well, is there any chance for some last-minute additions to the patch notes? I'm sure the people who don't frequent the modding section would love to know about that new shield-adding hullmod :P

I'll do one better - update the patch notes and release the new version :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 02, 2012, 01:51:23 PM
HUGS AND LOVE FOR ALEX AND DEV TEAM ALL ROUND
HUZZAH 0.53A IS OUT DL NOW ZOMFG I AM SO HAPPY
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on August 02, 2012, 01:57:42 PM
WHOO! So glad I was wrong.  :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on August 02, 2012, 02:09:44 PM
FREE HUGS FOR EVERYONE!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on August 02, 2012, 02:20:51 PM
Now that 0.53's released, what're you planning for 0.54(or whatever number it will be), Alex? :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 02, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
Now that 0.53's released, what're you planning for 0.54(or whatever number it will be), Alex? :P
Campaign functionality I believe
oh and btw, THIS IS SO COOL
IT'S LIKE
LIKE
phase ships are AWESOME
systems are being used
this rocks
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Trylobot on August 02, 2012, 02:32:09 PM
Yessssssssssss!!!!! 0.53a!!!!!11
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 02, 2012, 02:32:40 PM
UH-RA!!!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on August 02, 2012, 02:43:15 PM
MUAHAHAHAH * cough* I mean I will happily help playtest :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 02:44:29 PM
Now that 0.53's released, what're you planning for 0.54(or whatever number it will be), Alex? :P

Things and stuff. Of the campaign variety. (Yes, that's as specific as I'm going to get right now.)


At the moment, I'm waiting for something to break horribly so that I have to fix it, and hoping against all hope that it won't happen :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 02, 2012, 02:46:48 PM
Don't worry, as a dev we all know you want to find bugs and squish them for that sense of achievement. ;)
Anyways, exciting new patch here.  I could have sworn I found a bug already, but it slipped my mind...

EDIT:
Got it!  Free-roam for the drones doesn't work.  They stay in formation around the ship.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 02, 2012, 02:47:06 PM
Now there's only one thing I'd like to say and ask right now.
Does the shade's emp ship system deal less emp damage than the omen's?
Also, the ai for phase ships should really run away if they are getting close to max flux. They aren't overly aware it seems. But... holy. This owns
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on August 02, 2012, 02:49:04 PM
Yay! A release!

Won't be modding it quite yet though because I don't have access to my workstation but will mess around on it on my other computers that I do happen to have access to at this time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Psiyon on August 02, 2012, 02:55:55 PM
So, since the release candidate is apparently working well, is there any chance for some last-minute additions to the patch notes? I'm sure the people who don't frequent the modding section would love to know about that new shield-adding hullmod :P

I'll do one better - update the patch notes and release the new version :)
Alex, did I ever mention that I loved you?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 02:56:15 PM
Yay, new release!

Time to test out how much firepower the Hammerhead can lay down. And see how many bugs can screw me over. :)

Edit: Immediately noticeable problem I found in the simulator: AI uses Burn Drive a little too much. In a hammerhead, I just stayed in front of a Dominator and backed off, waiting for it to hit it's burn drive. Then, I just moved to the side, all while pounding the AI's now exposed front with Maulers, taking little damage myself. The Dominator was often too slow to face me after it stopped using it's Burn Drive before I got out of range.

Suggestion: AI will only use burn drive when the enemy is in a bad shape (flux and/or armor wise) and the enemy has roughly the same or less speed and/or maneuverability. Or when the enemy's back is turned.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 02, 2012, 04:03:07 PM
just a forewarning for those of us that use Norton anti virus.

the installer is seen as a medium threat. and it will automatically remove it from your system when you download it.. so just be ready for that.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on August 02, 2012, 04:05:49 PM
  • Adjusted missile panic fire to occur earlier for shieldless (and cloakless) ships. Mostly affects the Buffalo Mk.2 - it's more likely to get rid of all its missiles before exploding.
Yeah... that just caught me. Nothing like fighting a Close Support Lasher, getting really close to killing it, then eating five harpoons.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 02, 2012, 04:13:02 PM
  • Adjusted missile panic fire to occur earlier for shieldless (and cloakless) ships. Mostly affects the Buffalo Mk.2 - it's more likely to get rid of all its missiles before exploding.
Yeah... that just caught me. Nothing like fighting a Close Support Lasher, getting really close to killing it, then eating five harpoons.

the SFX of the dog laughing at you in Duck Hunt from NES comes to mind.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 02, 2012, 04:15:11 PM
ah, so that's why there's a Salamader spam whenever I face a laser or a buffalo.  Even worse with both in Campaign. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on August 02, 2012, 04:20:03 PM
Aside from the fact that a laser is a weapon, there's nothing wrong with your sentence.

 :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 04:28:47 PM
just a forewarning for those of us that use Norton anti virus.

the installer is seen as a medium threat. and it will automatically remove it from your system when you download it.. so just be ready for that.

If those of you who use norton and run into the issue could use this (https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/) to report the problem to them, I'd really appreciate it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on August 02, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
  • Toned down ship explosion whiteout, fixed case where it would stay washed out for too long
Toned down? Are you sure? Because every Buffalo MKII I've killed since the update has lit up my monitor like a Christmas tree.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 02, 2012, 05:01:45 PM
  • Toned down ship explosion whiteout, fixed case where it would stay washed out for too long
Toned down? Are you sure? Because every Buffalo MKII I've killed since the update has lit up my monitor like a Christmas tree.
Same here.  Really white for about half a second, then goes out quickly.  Did you happen to reduce the time for it to go away or did you reduce the glare from it?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 05:04:46 PM
That was just a fix for the case where if a few explosions happen at about the same time, it'd stay white for 10+ seconds.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 05:19:43 PM
Alex, I think the AI for Phase ships might have some problems. I saw a Doom overload itself by phasing when all that was coming at it was a periodic Pilum wave. There was absolutely nothing else around it. It had more than enough PD to defend itself from a single Pilum launcher. And I'm not even sure if the missiles were even targeting the Doom. Yet it overloaded itself.

And Ambush seems really hard for medium difficulty due to all the fighters. Is there some trick to it that I'm missing?

Also, just in case you missed my edit:
Edit: Immediately noticeable problem I found in the simulator: AI uses Burn Drive a little too much. In a hammerhead, I just stayed in front of a Dominator and backed off, waiting for it to hit it's burn drive. Then, I just moved to the side, all while pounding the AI's now exposed front with Maulers, taking little damage myself. The Dominator was often too slow to face me after it stopped using it's Burn Drive before I got out of range.

Suggestion: AI will only use burn drive when the enemy is in a bad shape (flux and/or armor wise) and the enemy has roughly the same or less speed and/or maneuverability. Or when the enemy's back is turned.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Namelessjake on August 02, 2012, 05:38:17 PM
Time to build a fleet of teleporting and phase ships and mess with people.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
Alex, I think the AI for Phase ships might have some problems. I saw a Doom overload itself by phasing when all that was coming at it was a periodic Pilum wave. There was absolutely nothing else around it. It had more than enough PD to defend itself from a single Pilum launcher. And I'm not even sure if the missiles were even targeting the Doom. Yet it overloaded itself.

And Ambush seems really hard for medium difficulty due to all the fighters. Is there some trick to it that I'm missing?

Also, just in case you missed my edit:
Edit: Immediately noticeable problem I found in the simulator: AI uses Burn Drive a little too much. In a hammerhead, I just stayed in front of a Dominator and backed off, waiting for it to hit it's burn drive. Then, I just moved to the side, all while pounding the AI's now exposed front with Maulers, taking little damage myself. The Dominator was often too slow to face me after it stopped using it's Burn Drive before I got out of range.

Suggestion: AI will only use burn drive when the enemy is in a bad shape (flux and/or armor wise) and the enemy has roughly the same or less speed and/or maneuverability. Or when the enemy's back is turned.

Yeah, it happens sometimes - the self overloads definitely happen more than I'd like, but still not all that often - and they don't last very long, either. Weighing whether the PD is sufficient to take out a missile salvo is difficult - something I'll no doubt have to take a look at in the future.

As far as burn drive, that's true - but I wouldn't necessarily gauge the AI's effectiveness with it based on a 1-1. Those don't happen much in "real" battles, and more aggressive burn drive use can be more beneficial there.

It's definitely not perfect, though - thank you for your feedback, I'll absolutely keep it in mind - and I'm looking forward to more. (In particular, just noted down to take another look at avoiding phase cloak self-overloads better).

As far as the Ambush mission - hmm. Don't know - I played it a few times, won some, lost some, then called it medium. I wouldn't read too much into the difficulty label. For me, the important thing to try to do there is take out whole fighter wings before they can escape back to a carrier. The two frigates can generally stay alive effectively, buying you a lot of time.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
The two frigates can generally stay alive effectively, buying you a lot of time.
For me, it always seems like the frigates stay alive for a very short amount time. :(

Also, another thing: The Reset button for missions doesn't appear to work.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 06:06:51 PM
Also, another thing: The Reset button for missions doesn't appear to work.

Odd - seems to work fine here. Any chance that the permissions on C:\Program Files\Fractal Softworks\Starfarer\saves are messed up?

Anyone else having this issue?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
Odd - seems to work fine here. Any chance that the permissions on C:\Program Files\Fractal Softworks\Starfarer\saves are messed up?
What should I look for being wrong?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: IIE16 Yoshi on August 02, 2012, 06:23:35 PM
So, since the release candidate is apparently working well, is there any chance for some last-minute additions to the patch notes? I'm sure the people who don't frequent the modding section would love to know about that new shield-adding hullmod :P

I'll do one better - update the patch notes and release the new version :)
Alex, did I ever mention that I loved you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fmZ2C2CdA
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 06:24:41 PM
Well, what might happen is if you don't normally run the game as admin, and you do once, the directories under save/ would be owned by administrator - and another account might have trouble deleting them.

I'd suggesting cleaning out the save/missions/ folder manually - might resolve it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
But I'm the admin. I'm the only user on this computer. Surely I wouldn't have problems with administrator rights if I am the administrator.

Anyway, clearing out the folder didn't resolve it. It did reset the ships, but it did not fix the reset button.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 06:43:04 PM
But I'm the admin. I'm the only user on this computer. Surely I wouldn't have problems with administrator rights if I am the administrator.

You'd think, but Windows can be funny about that. Speaking of that, what version of Windows are you on?

Can you try temporarily turning off UAC to see if that changes anything?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on August 02, 2012, 06:45:50 PM
Quick sum up of a two hours of playing vanilla, from scratch (new game):
- Phase skimmer is a pure win, it's useful in almost ANY SITUATION. Combine that with Heavy Blasters on Medusa, or full-pulse-laser-Wolf, and... Goodbye Hounds, goodbye.

- Phase cloak overall is pretty nice, but actually, not so much fun to play.
Few issues with it though - right now, I'm never going to give a phase ship to AI, it's just so risky.

Another one, I find Doom to be completely... well, not underpowered, but very, very limited in it's usefulness. While phase frigates are fast, and can use hit'n'run tactics, in Doom I find myself phasing, moving close to enemy, unphasing and firing all I got (sabots and torpedoes), praying that he dies quickly because I don't have enough flux to phase again and run. It worked on Onslaught pretty well, but of course you spend all your missiles. And I was lucky. But then another time, I tried using this thing against a Venture! Sabots might reach it, but torpedoes will be ripped apart by PD. And that leaves you with pretty much nothing, because you cannot have sustainable Pulse Laser fire (because you will just die), and Heavy Blasters will kill your flux anyway, just faster.
On the other hand, phase frigate handles Venture no problem. Really, no problem at all. Close in, unphase, shoot AM/sabot, phase, fly away. Rinse'n'repeat. Frigates can also pretty much phase/unphase all the time, because of low flux costs. Doom however, not so much, unless you go full vented, and have no flux buffer that way. And don't shoot of course.

My post was written too quickly, and too late at night, so this part is ***.

BTW, I got so good at phase/unphase that enemy ships can't even hit me :>

Comments about Doom, and it's current state, solutions, etc. much appreciated!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 06:58:03 PM
You'd think, but Windows can be funny about that. Speaking of that, what version of Windows are you on?
Vista, still. Never jumped on the free Win7 train when it came.

Can you try temporarily turning off UAC to see if that changes anything?
I'm pretty sure I've never had UAC on for years.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on August 02, 2012, 07:02:42 PM
- Phase cloak overall is pretty nice, but actually, not so much fun to play.
Few issues with it though - right now, I'm never going to give a phase ship to AI, it's just so risky.

I've found quite the opposide, I LOVE the phase cloak. The AI is also annoyingly devious with it, so long as you don't pin it down (Graviton lasers are good for that) they're virtually untouchable
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
You'd think, but Windows can be funny about that. Speaking of that, what version of Windows are you on?
Vista, still. Never jumped on the free Win7 train when it came.

Can you try temporarily turning off UAC to see if that changes anything?
I'm pretty sure I've never had UAC on for years.

Thanks for the info. Not sure there's much I can do at this point - all the game tries to do is delete some files, and apparently in a narrow set of circumstances that doesn't work. Are you able to delete save games, btw?

Comments about Doom, and it's current state, solutions, etc. much appreciated!

Well, I just tried it vs a Venture to make sure what I'm going to say actually works :) Basically: a proper timing of Sabots, Reapers, and Pulse Laser fire can overload and take down a Venture very quickly. What you want is to threaten a Reaper hit right when some Sabots are coming in, to force that overload, and then finish off with a Fast Missile Racks + second Reaper volley. You can also pressure it with Pulse Lasers while being out of range - that's a good way to start things off. Being slower and with shorter-ranged weapons, it's helpless against that.

If you want to change things up, the fact that those small hardpoints are universal is a big deal. There are a few other loadouts that are *very* effective - the stock one is far from the best.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on August 02, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
I've found that frigate phase ships can give distract most others for quite some time, was testing a ship of mine against an Enforcer and it ended up being something more akin to a bullfight than a space battle ;D
These systems really are incredibly fun to use, not to mention changes the combat up quite a bit
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
These systems really are incredibly fun to use, not to mention changes the combat up quite a bit

Thanks, I'm really happy you're enjoying them :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 02, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
Thanks for the info. Not sure there's much I can do at this point - all the game tries to do is delete some files, and apparently in a narrow set of circumstances that doesn't work. Are you able to delete save games, btw?
Yes, I can delete save games. Maybe the problem can be fixed if they both save and/or delete the same way?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2012, 08:01:51 PM
Good to know - I'll note that down and take a look tomorrow.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: WarStalkeR on August 03, 2012, 12:37:01 AM
Alex! We need grappling weapon! Imagine like some pirates grapple enemy ship with titanium chains, then use insertion to collide it with other enemy ships or make it impossible to escape from the ship which grappled it!  It will look just awesome and unique! (Yeah I know Sots was first space game to utilize them, but there are lots of 15th century era setting games with naval battles where they are used).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 03, 2012, 01:11:28 AM
Does anyone have any good tips for the Ambush mission? It just seems too hard: The fighters can just continually harass you and return to their carriers. The Enforcer is nigh unbeatable by even the Doom unless the Doom spends a majority of it's slots on and fires buttloads of missiles, or the Afflictor fires 12 Albatross missiles and an Antimatter all at once point blank. The Condor and Buffalo fire so many Pilums. The frigates prevent your frigates from making any moves. And the AI for the Phase ships does not know how to handle phasing. I'm completely stumped as to how to beat the mission.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Uomoz on August 03, 2012, 01:14:08 AM
Does anyone have any good tips for the Ambush mission? It just seems too hard: The fighters can just continually harass you and return to their carriers. The Enforcer is nigh unbeatable by even the Doom unless the Doom spends a majority of it's slots on and fires buttloads of missiles, or the Afflictor fires 12 Albatross missiles and an Antimatter all at once point blank. The Condor and Buffalo fire so many Pilums. The frigates prevent your frigates from making any moves. And the AI for the Phase ships does not know how to handle phasing. I'm completely stumped as to how to beat the mission.

I beat it controlling the doom, leaving the 2 frigates fighting free, and focusing ALL my efforts trying to kill fighters fast (then moving onto lashers etc).
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 03, 2012, 01:38:20 AM
Hah, that worked! I lost both frigates and completely ran dry my missile supply but it worked. Thanks. It's just a shame that I had to sacrifice those frigates.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on August 03, 2012, 03:53:54 AM
I edited my post about Doom, because well, I felt it was kind of far from truth.

Anyway, there's still this problem of usefulness - 20 FP, 60 thousand credits gives you... well, not what I expected at least.

Also, when I said "not fun too play" I meant exactly, and specifically Doom. I enjoy phasing with frigates, they are fine :>
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 03, 2012, 03:56:36 AM
The doom does 125 for speed. It moves fantastically and has a rather interesting weapon setup. I'm interested, to say the least
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Upgradecap on August 03, 2012, 05:44:40 AM
I apparently can't read -_-'

Oh, and when will we see (if ever) your ship editor that you use, alex? Provided you'll ever release it, that is ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 03, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
Wasnt the Sensor Drones supposed to have Ion Cannons? Sadface, they dont.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: mendonca on August 03, 2012, 06:23:57 AM
I apparently can't read -_-'

Oh, and when will we see (if ever) your ship editor that you use, alex? Provided you'll ever release it, that is ;)

Alex has previously expressed a desire to release this, but I think the truth of it is that with Redbull's/Trylobot's excellent editors it takes some of the heat off him actually spending any time sanitising it and releasing it to the general public.

I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't even on his 'to-do' list anymore ...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Skyjump on August 03, 2012, 06:50:48 AM
So for those of us with norton, can anyone who has gotten past this help out? is there a way to disable to the norton for a while to let it go through? Thank you
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 03, 2012, 07:06:26 AM
So for those of us with norton, can anyone who has gotten past this help out? is there a way to disable to the norton for a while to let it go through? Thank you

Uninstall it, then install Avast! instead.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on August 03, 2012, 07:19:11 AM
So for those of us with norton, can anyone who has gotten past this help out? is there a way to disable to the norton for a while to let it go through? Thank you

First of all, the solution is not to use norton at all because 1. it doesnt protect you from anything 2. it slows down your computer far more than is reasonable and 3. norton is (was) scareware.

I'd tell you to uninstall it but thats nearly impossible. The day norton lets you uninstall it is the day the hegemony fields hyperions.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Amazigh on August 03, 2012, 07:22:38 AM
So for those of us with norton, can anyone who has gotten past this help out? is there a way to disable to the norton for a while to let it go through? Thank you

Open the main norton control panel, click on Tasks, Check security History, find the action where it removed the Starfarer installer, click the More Details button, there should be a restore file button [or something like that] somewhere in the popup, and hey presto you've gotten around Nortons silliness!


Wasnt the Sensor Drones supposed to have Ion Cannons? Sadface, they dont.

I also noticed this, slightly disappointing when I was expecting them to help me out but they just sat there.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on August 03, 2012, 07:27:54 AM
Wasnt the Sensor Drones supposed to have Ion Cannons? Sadface, they dont.

I also noticed this, slightly disappointing when I was expecting them to help me out but they just sat there.
[/quote]

It's okay, the Apogee doesn't really need more firepower, haha. It's already getting more range from those drones.

I haven't heard any whining about the Tachyon Lance yet. I haven't had a chance to play the new patch, but something tells me the Lance is going to be in a much better place.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: SwipertheFox on August 03, 2012, 07:52:04 AM
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! 
 ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 03, 2012, 07:54:45 AM
Quote
I haven't heard any whining about the Tachyon Lance yet. I haven't had a chance to play the new patch, but something tells me the Lance is going to be in a much better place.

Yeah the lance is pretty crappy now, dont think ima be using it anymore. It does a good deal of EMP damage and stuff, but there are way better options now.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on August 03, 2012, 08:48:24 AM
Quote
I haven't heard any whining about the Tachyon Lance yet. I haven't had a chance to play the new patch, but something tells me the Lance is going to be in a much better place.

Yeah the lance is pretty crappy now, dont think ima be using it anymore. It does a good deal of EMP damage and stuff, but there are way better options now.
I mounted one Lance on AI controlled Apogee. Man, it sucked. When Apogee actually managed to hit something (it's a hardpoint after all but still) it usually hit shields. So I took the controls, and tried it myself - Hound was my first enemy on tactical screen, locked on, turned to shot, activated Lance... BAM, its engines went down. Aaaaaaaaand that's about it. Really, with such EMP damage I expected all its systems to just go nuts, but instead, it was still spraying its AC and hitting my fighters while slowly turning with no thrust.

Maybe its a flaw of how EMP damage is distributed, I don't know. But I dumped both Apogee and TL right away. Bought another two Medusas and enjoying them a lot :>
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Nooblies on August 03, 2012, 09:01:05 AM
Been playing around with a Hound for a while, and Salamanders have a bad habit of ignoring flares. I was just wondering if they have built in flare avoidance similar to the ECCM mod, as it'd make sense for such "smart" missiles to be built to counter such countermeasures.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 03, 2012, 09:14:21 AM
Guys, remember
sunder with tachyon lance
engage HEF and you (should?) go back to prepatch damage
stick three on an odyssey and repeat for a lot of damage
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on August 03, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
I think the Lance will be a very effective fire support/volley fire weapon. Running two on an Odyssey and/or four on a Paragon won't be as much of an "I WIN" button anymore.

The problem really exacerbated itself when you started massing them.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 03, 2012, 09:19:23 AM
Guys, remember
sunder with tachyon lance
engage HEF and you (should?) go back to prepatch damage
stick three on an odyssey and repeat for a lot of damage

Its just not worth the OP after the range nerf and the fact that you need atleast 2-3 of them and a ship with HEF for it to be usable. Maybe if the OP was dropped to 28-25 or so.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on August 03, 2012, 10:08:08 AM
Guys, remember
sunder with tachyon lance
engage HEF and you (should?) go back to prepatch damage
stick three on an odyssey and repeat for a lot of damage
Sorry Xareh, but that's a basic math error :D
Pre-patch TL damage = x;
Post patch = 50% of x = 0.5x;
With HEF = 0.5x + 0.5*(post-patch-damage) = 0.5x + 0.5* 0.5x = 0.5x + 0.25x = 0.75x;

So with HEF, you get 75% of the pre-patch damage. You get a lot more EMP damage, but well, I've already stated that I just don't feel it works properly.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: leonvision on August 03, 2012, 10:16:59 AM
Guys, remember
sunder with tachyon lance
engage HEF and you (should?) go back to prepatch damage
stick three on an odyssey and repeat for a lot of damage

I've been running with a sunder with autopulse instead and that works marvelously as well, just need to be extra careful around a annihilator RL. it works even better if you have intergrated targeting unit, so you can stay out of range. i personally enjoy a sunder with a auto pulse more than lance because the lance takes too much OP. FYI, i hav 2 phasebeams in the 2 medium energy slot, no missiles and 3 light MG for point defense.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Acolnahuacatl on August 03, 2012, 02:00:04 PM
I have to say, I've really changed my mind about phase ships now that I've spent some time using the Doom cruiser. It has decent cargo space, and more armour than you'd expect. But what really makes it work wonderfully is its performance when equipped with an all-Annihilator front set of missiles. It can take down just about anything without worrying about running low on ammo, missing shots, building up flux or having shots diverted by flare launchers. The large number of missiles also discourages ships from approaching into weapons range, allowing you to lose flux without taking hits. Effectively, it turns a strike craft into something more like an assault craft. Phase ships also have plenty of advantages I didn't think of - for example, whilst a few squadrons of Piranhas mean trouble for even an Aurora's shield, a phase ship can just avoid the damage completely.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on August 03, 2012, 04:24:22 PM
Spoiler
I have to say, I've really changed my mind about phase ships now that I've spent some time using the Doom cruiser. It has decent cargo space, and more armour than you'd expect. But what really makes it work wonderfully is its performance when equipped with an all-Annihilator front set of missiles. It can take down just about anything without worrying about running low on ammo, missing shots, building up flux or having shots diverted by flare launchers. The large number of missiles also discourages ships from approaching into weapons range, allowing you to lose flux without taking hits. Effectively, it turns a strike craft into something more like an assault craft. Phase ships also have plenty of advantages I didn't think of - for example, whilst a few squadrons of Piranhas mean trouble for even an Aurora's shield, a phase ship can just avoid the damage completely.
[close]
Whoo I made a build based on this, and you are right. It is maximum ownage. That and reaper spam are amazing.  :D  EDIT: And that's only with two small reaper pods.  :D

EDIT AGAIN: Also try putting 6 linked amblasters on there. Just for fun.  :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: neonesis on August 03, 2012, 05:50:27 PM
EDIT AGAIN: Also try putting 6 linked amblasters on there. Just for fun.  :D

Tried your Annihilator variant - didn't worked for me. So in my fury, I put 8 AM blasters on it. Oh dear. But actually, an Onslaught is capable of taking such fire, and not overloading - provided he wasn't shooting prior to assault. But then, reducing the number to 6 AMs, adding more vents, burst PD and Typhoon launchers seems to work even better, and you're not screwed up against bigger number of ships.

Still, I find the Doom underpowered in a way :>

Also, my AI-controlled Phase Frigates tend to cowardly hide behind my Medusas, and do nothing. Anyone else experiencing this?
Their setup includes 1 AM, two tracking torpedoes, two packs of sabots.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Temjin on August 03, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
Burn Drive is just awesome. Very well-balanced and takes forethought and skill to use.

Since you can fire during Burn Drive, it's great for chasing down Hounds or engaging point-cappers early game. But, since you can't steer while firing it and most ships that have it handle like a cow in a shopping cart, you have to be very careful where you point.

It's very satisfying with an Enforcer due to all the turreted mounts making playing catch-up trivial, and I've even tried running a version with HMGs that works reasonably well to get in their face. The Dominator is less easy-to-use due to the fixed hardpoints, but I imagine the Onslaught will be great fun. Also, giving it to the Tarsus makes the "Wolf Pack" mission much harder!

-The Skimmer is great too, although the AI is way better at it than I am since they can skip around all over the place and still keep hardpointed beams pointing at enemy targets. They even use it to avoid collisions.

-The Omen's EMP burst is VERY powerful, especially against minimally-shielded ships. One Omen does a big number on large groups of fighters and missiles now.

-I haven't figured out phase ships yet. Great mechanic, but tough to use effectively due to the limited time you have to spend phased. It'll probably take some learning to do.

-Fast Missile Racks is great for sending another round of Harpoons into a venting/overloaded ship. Works great. The rapid reload on the Hammerhead is nice too with lower-flux weapons, although you can overload yourself pretty quick if you're not careful. Maneuvering Jets is nice, especially on an asymmetrical Conquest, but the Eagle and Falcon are still a little... uninteresting to fly, for lack of a better term.

-The Buffalo Panic is actually pretty scary if you don't have flak!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: DrZaloski on August 03, 2012, 09:52:23 PM
I love how this updates always surprise me and come out of nowhere. I read all the information like ship system and phase-cloaking, think "that's cool" then forget about it. Then some day in the next month I stop by on the news again and see it's all out. Always makes me a little happier :D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: hydremajor on August 04, 2012, 12:39:38 AM
We've had 4 pages up overnight....
Methinks we've got a nerdception going on...

Anywho here's me thinking that all thats really left to implement in the campaign is

-Actual missions to earn your moola

-System travel

-RPG elements such as captain leveling up and officers and all that crap...

-Faction creation capacities ?
(I.E. create your own faction in space and empire creation/management)

I make it sound like its not a lot but its actually pretty good chunk of mostly coding right there....

Do correct me if there's more I forgot ?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Reshy on August 04, 2012, 12:44:12 AM
We've had 4 pages up overnight....
Methinks we've got a nerdception going on...

Anywho here's me thinking that all thats really left to implement in the campaign is

-Actual missions to earn your moola

-System travel

-RPG elements such as captain leveling up and officers and all that crap...

-Faction creation capacities ?
(I.E. create your own faction in space and empire creation/management)

I make it sound like its not a lot but its actually pretty good chunk of mostly coding right there....

Do correct me if there's more I forgot ?


How about a goal and better stratification of tech?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Mattk50 on August 04, 2012, 01:35:56 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on August 04, 2012, 01:40:42 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Yes, rule the WORLD MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Lancefighter on August 04, 2012, 01:54:16 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?

To be fair - There are a few sets of quests. I believe one claimant for each faction, at least. In wfas, they added some more stuff, but I couldnt handle how terrible guns felt.

Usually a 'main plot' also serves as a tutorial, so there is that to take into account as well.

I would really love to see some sort of rudimentary tech timeline, with the game's technology actually progressing, starting in early era and moving into late era blahblah.

But yeah. Lets start with the travelling between systems and rpg elements.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: hydremajor on August 04, 2012, 04:47:20 AM
Okay SO....

I can see the shade or whatever its name is
(the phase frigate with the two phase "pools" in its sprite)
getting a pretty heavy nerf to its EMP function, that thing can make the hound into an absolutely useless chunk of floating metal

Poor thing can't even get a shot off before getting EMP-locked to death

Either that or EMP capable ships are made out to be the end-game tier of frigates that can make even cruisers look like pushovers should you get too close for them to run from your almighty EMP that completely hardcounters every weapon system...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 04, 2012, 04:54:17 AM
EMP frigates are easy to counter. Gang up on them from range, since they are squishy and need to get close. Of course the shade can phase in but it's still vulnerable while firing off and doesn't have any armour realistically
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Talkie Toaster on August 04, 2012, 05:50:37 AM
Okay SO....

I can see the shade or whatever its name is
(the phase frigate with the two phase "pools" in its sprite)
getting a pretty heavy nerf to its EMP function, that thing can make the hound into an absolutely useless chunk of floating metal

Poor thing can't even get a shot off before getting EMP-locked to death

Either that or EMP capable ships are made out to be the end-game tier of frigates that can make even cruisers look like pushovers should you get too close for them to run from your almighty EMP that completely hardcounters every weapon system...
It only counters shieldless ships, EMP systems do very little damage to shields. The Hound suffers because it's fast, shieldless and relies on mobility to stay alive- it's effectively an overweight fighter, and the EMP system's designed to take them down.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on August 04, 2012, 06:37:15 AM
Plus the Hound's rather pathetic already, it's not a good basis on whether a ship is overpowered :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Jonlissla on August 04, 2012, 06:50:52 AM
Plus the Hound's rather pathetic already, it's not a good basis on whether a ship is overpowered :P

Contrary to popular belief, the Hound performs admirably well for its cost. It's fast, cheap, has good cargospace, is manueverable and armed with a medium ballistic slot. Add in the AI update and it's fully capable of handling itself against most early threats and live to tell the tale.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 04, 2012, 07:36:24 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Yes, rule the WORLD MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D

but brain what are we going to do tomorrow night.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 04, 2012, 07:37:15 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Yes, rule the WORLD MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D

but brain what are we going to do tomorrow night.
you could go visit triangle man
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arcibalde on August 04, 2012, 08:12:25 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Yes, rule the WORLD MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D

but brain what are we going to do tomorrow night.

Partyyyyyyyy and drink, lots and lots of drinking! YEAH!!!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Avan on August 04, 2012, 08:14:06 AM
Phase ships are awesome to manually pilot - the potential to trick the AI ships is virtually limitless with the right timing; pity the AI can sometimes get tricked into phasing, building up its flux, and get stuck rapidly phasing and un-phasing because of perceived threats, which due to the rapidity is completely useless. (ok, I've used semi-rapid phasing before, and it works if you time it right and are in a frigate; in a one-on-one it makes you virtually unhittable - its just that the AI doesn't exploit that like I can; it needs to pause longer on both phased and unphased states to actually make that tactic useful; here it unphases so quickly that any projectiles over it just end up blowing up inside of it anyways.)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Aratoop on August 04, 2012, 09:15:08 AM
a goal? Does mount and blade campaign need a goal?
Yes, rule the WORLD MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  ;D

but brain what are we going to do tomorrow night.
you could go visit triangle man

But I'm so booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooored!
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 04, 2012, 10:37:26 AM
So, what's the next patch going to be?  0.54a?  .6a?  I wanna know so I can determine how much is going ot be added. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 04, 2012, 10:40:43 AM
So, what's the next patch going to be?  0.54a?  .6a?  I wanna know so I can determine how much is going ot be added. ;D
The next patch is most probably going to be a 0.53.1a, then we'll see a patch to .6A! YAAY
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Valiant19 on August 04, 2012, 02:08:04 PM
So, what's the next patch going to be?  0.54a?  .6a?  I wanna know so I can determine how much is going ot be added. ;D
The next patch is most probably going to be a 0.53.1a, then we'll see a patch to .6A! YAAY

Yeah, I imagine it'll be .6a, since Alex'll be adding something pertaining to the campaign.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Thaago on August 04, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/03/07/starfarer-0-51a-release/

It doesn't really matter :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: xanderh on August 04, 2012, 05:13:53 PM
I absolutely love the phase skimmer on the medusa. It's a killer now, even more so than before. I managed to take out one of the pirate fleets with a venture, using only two medusas. I countered their flanking attempt, only because of the phase skimmer. And it kept me alive against the freighters, as I took them down one by one, while my wingman kept the venture busy. I used the same strategy on the venture, skimming inside range to fire at him, and backing out again when my flux level was filling. It's awesome.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on August 04, 2012, 07:15:30 PM
Yeah I really think skimming is my favorite system. (though I haven't actually played with teleport, yet, haha).

Burn drive is pretty awesome though. Love drive-bying medusae that are trying to escape by skimming.  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 04, 2012, 08:17:12 PM
i do recall Alex either making a post, a blog, or a thread about how he was going to do the patch versions.. im leaning towards a blog.. but sufice it to say if i remember correctly and i believe i do.. then he is going to go on with .53a>.54a>.55a>.56a etc.

here i did you guys a favor and tracked it down for you.. it was in a blog a while back

Quote
First off – let’s talk about version numbers. The previous release was technically a “preview” of the 0.5a build “proper”, whatever that means. That was until I started thinking about how to version this “bugfixes & improvements” release, which still wouldn’t have all the features slated for 0.5a. 0.5a2? 0.5a-preview2?

I’ve had to sit through a few meetings with people arguing about version numbers at my various former jobs (seems like everyone doesn’t want to waste time with it, but also can’t stand doing it any way but theirs), and I don’t want to be that guy, especially not to myself. Down with the version number sophistry! This release will be known henceforth as 0.51a, and the next one will be… wait for it… 0.52a. I’ll just have to avoid specifying a version number when talking about planned feature sets, as I did with version 0.5a.

I’m sure everyone is quite sick of talking about version numbers by now (see what I mean? I didn’t want to waste time on this, and look what happened!), so let’s dive into what’s new in this version.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Griffinhart on August 05, 2012, 05:46:37 AM
The next release is going to be v1.3, and won't be out until Q2 2013.

Source: my prophetic fever dreams.

-- Griffinhart
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on August 05, 2012, 07:47:21 AM
whatever is next patch going to be....i for one cant wait.... too bad my damned HDD drive died and i cant even try the 0.53...how is it?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 05, 2012, 07:47:54 AM
whatever is next patch going to be....i for one cant wait.... too bad my damned HDD drive died and i cant even try the 0.53...how is it?
It's...
wonderful...
like nothing you can imagine
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: DJ Die on August 05, 2012, 07:55:59 AM
whatever is next patch going to be....i for one cant wait.... too bad my damned HDD drive died and i cant even try the 0.53...how is it?
It's...
wonderful...
like nothing you can imagine
oh i have pretty wild imagination ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 05, 2012, 10:47:24 AM
whatever is next patch going to be....i for one cant wait.... too bad my damned HDD drive died and i cant even try the 0.53...how is it?
It's a pretty good combat overhaul. And there's without a doubt some subtle and not-so-subtle balance issues scattered about as a result. And the AI doesn't handle the systems perfectly. But still, very good regardless.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on August 05, 2012, 02:54:52 PM
well i dunno if this is right , but my phase criuser ...well... its stop phaseing, ok ok hes got fast missile relise  or something like that
 ::)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tarran on August 05, 2012, 03:13:07 PM
What? What's the question?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 05, 2012, 03:24:33 PM
well i dunno if this is right , but my phase criuser ...well... its stop phaseing, ok ok hes got fast missile relise  or something like that
 ::)


What?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 05, 2012, 03:32:38 PM
Phase is the shield button.  A ship system is totally different.  Sometimes I think you're trolling us all. :shrug:
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: theSONY on August 05, 2012, 04:02:56 PM
no i ain't trolling , but .. umm... yeah, maybe i just try to use RMB :D
WHAT ?! i thought that all this invisible thing was a ship system ;P
 OK nothing to watch here, carry on ^^
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Gaizokubanou on August 05, 2012, 05:35:41 PM
Great patch with lot of cool stuff Alex!

But I just want to say, I think combat side of the game received enough development time for now.  Sure, it can get better with more effort put into it, but I think the game could use more meta-game related contents to put this excellent combat system in context.  Not saying that combat is perfect nor it doesn't need any tweaks, since anything can be improved... rather, I think the meta game aspect of economy/systems needs more attention now that combat has been refined far ahead of the game's overall status.

It's like we have this awesome sports car (the combat system) but just an empty parking lot (the single bare bone system we have now) to drive it around in! ;)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 05, 2012, 05:39:03 PM
Great patch with lot of cool stuff Alex!

But I just want to say, I think combat side of the game received enough development time for now.  Sure, it can get better with more effort put into it, but I think the game could use more meta-game related contents to put this excellent combat system in context.  Not saying that combat is perfect nor it doesn't need any tweaks, since anything can be improved... rather, I think the meta game aspect of economy/systems needs more attention now that combat has been refined far ahead of the game's overall status.

It's like we have this awesome sports car (the combat system) but just an empty parking lot (the single bare bone system we have now) to drive it around in! ;)

Alex said he wanted to finish the combat part before starting other things, that way there is 1 polished thing in the game instead of 2 unfinished things. And as the combat part is basically done, I would expect non combat stuff to be next. Im hoping for officers and/or character skills.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2012, 05:39:49 PM
Great patch with lot of cool stuff Alex!

But I just want to say, I think combat side of the game received enough development time for now.  Sure, it can get better with more effort put into it, but I think the game could use more meta-game related contents to put this excellent combat system in context.  Not saying that combat is perfect nor it doesn't need any tweaks, since anything can be improved... rather, I think the meta game aspect of economy/systems needs more attention now that combat has been refined far ahead of the game's overall status.

It's like we have this awesome sports car (the combat system) but just an empty parking lot (the single bare bone system we have now) to drive it around in! ;)

Thanks for the feedback - I'm in general agreement :)

My plan is to make a few tweaks and bugfixes based on your guys' feedback and reports - without taking too long at it - and then move on to campaign stuff.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Faiter119 on August 05, 2012, 05:40:53 PM
Great patch with lot of cool stuff Alex!

But I just want to say, I think combat side of the game received enough development time for now.  Sure, it can get better with more effort put into it, but I think the game could use more meta-game related contents to put this excellent combat system in context.  Not saying that combat is perfect nor it doesn't need any tweaks, since anything can be improved... rather, I think the meta game aspect of economy/systems needs more attention now that combat has been refined far ahead of the game's overall status.

It's like we have this awesome sports car (the combat system) but just an empty parking lot (the single bare bone system we have now) to drive it around in! ;)

Thanks for the feedback - I'm in general agreement :)

My plan is to make a few tweaks and bugfixes based on your guys' feedback and reports - without taking too long at it - and then move on to campaign stuff.

(http://i.imgur.com/MEc5Q.jpg)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: K-64 on August 05, 2012, 05:42:04 PM
Great patch with lot of cool stuff Alex!

But I just want to say, I think combat side of the game received enough development time for now.  Sure, it can get better with more effort put into it, but I think the game could use more meta-game related contents to put this excellent combat system in context.  Not saying that combat is perfect nor it doesn't need any tweaks, since anything can be improved... rather, I think the meta game aspect of economy/systems needs more attention now that combat has been refined far ahead of the game's overall status.

It's like we have this awesome sports car (the combat system) but just an empty parking lot (the single bare bone system we have now) to drive it around in! ;)

Well, this is the latest (as far as I know) that Alex has said about the next version

Now that 0.53's released, what're you planning for 0.54(or whatever number it will be), Alex? :P

Things and stuff. Of the campaign variety. (Yes, that's as specific as I'm going to get right now.)


At the moment, I'm waiting for something to break horribly so that I have to fix it, and hoping against all hope that it won't happen :)

The way that I understand it, he was wanting to get the combat more or less nailed down then start on the fluffy stuff of the game. That way you start with the ultrafun gory business as the world gets established. A metaphorical tribalism to metropolitan living, as it were (yeah, that probably makes no sense, I'm rambling now :P)


EDIT: ...or what Alex said right there. That's more latest than what I said
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: armoredcookie on August 05, 2012, 05:48:41 PM
So Alex, can we get a hint at what's next?  ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 05, 2012, 05:55:17 PM
Things and stuff. Of the campaign variety. (Yes, that's as specific as I'm going to get right now.)
His answer. ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: armoredcookie on August 05, 2012, 06:02:38 PM
Ahhh I see now. Things and stuff are pretty good but the other things and stuff is good as well. Thanks Soldier :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 05, 2012, 06:30:22 PM
I'm getting an XML error whenever I try to download >_>

This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
      <Error><Code>NoSuchBucket</Code><Message>The specified bucket does not exist</Message><BucketName>_.htm</BucketName><RequestId>A8E9C42F1EA14DAB</RequestId><HostId>ye+YLRW/LgMUNAYKPN182EOiGG8cAgvCIpXVdNh07YeWb8AIAk8dQxkqcwEcdErf</HostId></Error>

Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2012, 06:38:03 PM
What URL are you trying to access?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 05, 2012, 07:22:47 PM
The "Starfarer for Windows" link. Also tried the other link from the Pre-Order page, no dice
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2012, 07:37:08 PM
I mean the actual URL - I'm thinking that perhaps the page is cached on your end so you're not getting the right link. That would explain the error.

Can you try this (http://s3.amazonaws.com/fractalsoftworks/starfarer/release/starfarer_install-0.53a-RC4.exe) instead?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 05, 2012, 07:45:35 PM
Still no dice D:

his XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
      <Error><Code>NoSuchBucket</Code><Message>The specified bucket does not exist</Message><BucketName>_.htm</BucketName><RequestId>F2BD2B0A7B747F44</RequestId><HostId>75SnB7sihz2sL6M/3he9EASDv3sA93V4ujKCt0BdOTHpcyJcGqKPi1ev8hxgnVb7</HostId></Error>

http://s3.amazonaws.com/fractalsoftworks/starfarer/release/starfarer_install-0.53a-RC4.exe ^

should I clear my cache? lol
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2012, 07:56:51 PM
Couldn't hurt - or try it in another browser. This is very odd... Amazon S3 (which is where the file is being hosted) may be having some sort of hiccup, I suppose. If I may ask, where are you located?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 05, 2012, 08:11:05 PM
i would try a different browser possibly.. that link works for me on firefox
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 05, 2012, 08:13:25 PM
The Philippines.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 05, 2012, 08:15:04 PM
Meh, still won't work on Chrome...God forbid I try IE :P

I'll try again later when I come home from uni
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on August 06, 2012, 05:35:01 PM
So, is there anything you can say about audio updates? The music and the new UI sounds were an excellent addition (a patch or two ago, I don't think there was any this time around), and I was wondering when we are going to receive another upgrade.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 06, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
Well, 0.53a had some new stuff :) New sounds for systems, sound filter effects for the phase cloak and the fortress shield.

There are other things in the works, but nothing I can talk about just yet.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FlashFrozen on August 06, 2012, 06:21:57 PM
I have a question about the drone system, is there anyway to make recalling drones unavailable? Say one drone, you launch it it'll never be able to return sorta deal.

Also, as I'm trying to jury rig a really... 'unique system' is there also a way to make shields unable to absorb shots while things are inside ( once you enter, you can shoot up the ship inside ) ? I can also sorta imagine a loophole to make it seem like that's happening is by making the collision much smaller than the shields to make it occasionally not take in shots,
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 06, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
Ahh, no on both counts - sorry!

You can make drones skip the "free roam" mode, but that's it.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: BillyRueben on August 06, 2012, 08:48:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FlashFrozen on August 06, 2012, 09:15:46 PM
Blargh, one last question, for the maneuvering jets, how does it actually specify which engines are turned on when the system is activatged? I'm lost on that one little detail xP
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 06, 2012, 09:18:55 PM
it turns them all on
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: icepick37 on August 06, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Well where do you specify the extra jets that turn on? I assume that's what he's asking. Those jets look awesome, btw, Alex.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: FlashFrozen on August 06, 2012, 09:42:01 PM
As it is from what I see on the falcon, there are 6 extra engines that aren't normally used in non jet mode,
but in the ship file, the engines there are just specified as normal engines, I'm confused over the part where it specifies it as a jet-only-engine.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 06, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
Still won't work even after clearing my cache (Firefox and Chrome) :(

Any chance of an alternative download link? lol
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Aratoop on August 07, 2012, 12:43:25 AM
Just pucker up and use IE, if that fails you're screwed :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 07, 2012, 08:14:44 AM
Blargh, one last question, for the maneuvering jets, how does it actually specify which engines are turned on when the system is activatged? I'm lost on that one little detail xP
Well where do you specify the extra jets that turn on? I assume that's what he's asking. Those jets look awesome, btw, Alex.

Oh, I was wondering when someone would ask that. You set the otherwise-unused "contrailSize" field to 128 to flag the engines as hidden (let's be kind to me and call it a "creative use of an existing, unused field for binary flags" - rather than an "awful hack"). They'll be activated by any system that modifies the engine glow.


Still won't work even after clearing my cache (Firefox and Chrome) :(

Any chance of an alternative download link? lol

Try this (http://fractalsoftworks.com/starfarer/release/starfarer_install-0.53a-RC4.exe). Again, where are you located? That would help to know if this comes up again. (If you don't want to share that information, feel free to say so.)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: stardidi on August 07, 2012, 08:29:12 AM

Still won't work even after clearing my cache (Firefox and Chrome) :(

Any chance of an alternative download link? lol

Try this (http://fractalsoftworks.com/starfarer/release/starfarer_install-0.53a-RC4.exe). Again, where are you located? That would help to know if this comes up again. (If you don't want to share that information, feel free to say so.)
The Philippines.


Tsssk, Tsssk Alex. You should really pay attention to your own forum :P
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 07, 2012, 08:30:41 AM
Gah! Totally missed that, ty.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: arwan on August 07, 2012, 04:12:28 PM
lol i would let Alex have this one.. he does work hard you know... you do work hard don't you Alex.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on August 07, 2012, 10:25:47 PM
Alex, do you have any ideas on how to assign the system AI for a mod system that's essentially a weapon.  For example, I have a system that fires lasers from the ship, but the AI has no idea how to use it.  My aiType is set to "Flare", but is that for the enemy AI?
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Lancefighter on August 07, 2012, 10:48:45 PM
If I had to guess, set it to the EMP type? They seem to love using that..
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on August 08, 2012, 01:08:24 AM
Yeah, I tried that.  Unfortunately, it caused a crash error.   :(

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1799.msg56795#msg56795
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Alex on August 08, 2012, 06:02:45 PM
Alex, do you have any ideas on how to assign the system AI for a mod system that's essentially a weapon.  For example, I have a system that fires lasers from the ship, but the AI has no idea how to use it.  My aiType is set to "Flare", but is that for the enemy AI?

The only one that'd work is the flare one, yeah - and it obviously wouldn't work right unless that weapon was perhaps some sort of flak cannon. Adding a solid weapon-use AI for systems is actually quite a bit of work. I'll take another look at it, but doing weapons that way doesn't really fit in with the overall plan. I've also got looking at adding proper hull-specific weapons on the todo somewhere, so if anything happens, it's more likely to on that front.
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: keptin on August 08, 2012, 07:13:02 PM
hull-specific weapons

That's exactly what I was trying to get at with system-weapons.  Since systems are hull-specific, I can give certain hulls powerful and interesting weapons that I couldn't balance otherwise and compensate by giving the hull less flux capacity or limit its use.

Thanks for the quick response, btw  :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Griffinhart on August 08, 2012, 07:47:05 PM
(let's be kind to me and call it a "creative use of an existing, unused field for binary flags" - rather than an "awful hack")
Hell, I would. At least you're not increasing bloat by adding in yet another data member, right?

(...he says, as though an additional boolean would be particularly bloatsome in a PC game.)

-- Griffinhart
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: naufrago on August 08, 2012, 08:30:22 PM
(let's be kind to me and call it a "creative use of an existing, unused field for binary flags" - rather than an "awful hack")
Hell, I would. At least you're not increasing bloat by adding in yet another data member, right?

(...he says, as though an additional boolean would be particularly bloatsome in a PC game.)

-- Griffinhart

Who knows, if he ever decides to port it to iOs or Android for some reason, it would help a bit ;D
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Griffinhart on August 08, 2012, 10:33:57 PM
Touch interface for Starfarer would be atrocious. I would know; I tried it!

(It works... slightly better with a stylus, but only if your touch interface is capacitive and you have a capacitive stylus to accompany it.)

-- Griffinhart
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Xareh on August 09, 2012, 09:26:22 AM
Touch interface for Starfarer would be atrocious. I would know; I tried it!

(It works... slightly better with a stylus, but only if your touch interface is capacitive and you have a capacitive stylus to accompany it.)

-- Griffinhart
That's because the interface isn't built for touch...
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: Tyrant on August 15, 2012, 07:44:48 AM
Ah, there! Works now, thank you Alex :)
Title: Re: Starfarer 0.53a (Released) Patch Notes
Post by: The Soldier on August 15, 2012, 07:52:12 AM
A bit late on the draw, no? ;D
0.53.1a already in the works.