Projectile graphics now rendered at correct aspect ratio based on the width of the trail, regardless of its lengthSo, if a shell bitmap's 8 pixels wide and 24 long, we define the trail at 8 pixels and it'll render correctly, yes, and if we make the width of the trail 16, it'll double the size of the bitmap by making the quad bigger, yes?
Does that mean less fighters flying into a wave of bombs from Piranhas?
- Varying degrees of independence (bombers - none ("stay on target!"), interceptors - lots)
- Will target and individually avoid incoming missiles
# "BALLISTIC_AS_BEAM" projectiles can now have a "PROXIMITY_FUSE" behavior
# Projectile graphics now rendered at correct aspect ratio based on the width of the trail, regardless of its length
Alex, this is all really great, but could please, please change "Ordnance Expert" to "Ordnance Expertise" ? It kills me to have one skill fall out of (grammatical) alignment :'(ah so the G in your avatar doesnt mean Gothars but Grammar nazi? ;D just kidding ive noticed that one too
I read your blog post about the skills a few days ago and it totally sounds awesome. But I just noticed in these dev patch notes that you said "No more synergies". Was the idea of synergies between skills taken out for some reason? Can you give any further info on that? I thought it sounded kind of cool, but either way I'm sure it'll work great.
I got about halfway into a very initial implementation of the skills - enough to see how it would look/play out and synergies just weren't working out. Hard to keep track of - even with some UI help - and felt, well, a bit too much like Excel.
Also difficult to expand/build out - some skills synergize nicely, concept wise, but others do not. Coming up with sensible bonuses Skill A gives to Skill B (and different bonuses that go from B to A!) is in some cases very difficult. Adding an entirely new skill into the mix would be troublesome.
There are some other things to flesh out skills instead of synergies, though - stuff I'm actually more excited about. It's cleaner, simpler, but also (I think) more interesting, because of how it shakes up the curve of when you get bonuses.
QuoteProjectile graphics now rendered at correct aspect ratio based on the width of the trail, regardless of its lengthSo, if a shell bitmap's 8 pixels wide and 24 long, we define the trail at 8 pixels and it'll render correctly, yes, and if we make the width of the trail 16, it'll double the size of the bitmap by making the quad bigger, yes?
Does that mean less fighters flying into a wave of bombs from Piranhas?
- Varying degrees of independence (bombers - none ("stay on target!"), interceptors - lots)
- Will target and individually avoid incoming missiles
Alex, what about giving HP to heavy projectiles and adding pierceSet to them in order to make railgun type weapons in 0.54?
Alex, this is all really great, but could you please, please change "Ordnance Expert" to "Ordnance Expertise" ? It kills me to have one skill fall out of (grammatical) alignment :'(
Will the enemy fleets also be using the skills and perks? If not, that would be a sizable advantage to the player.
First time i read about synergies my though was: 'oh man, that`s going to be too complex'. Then i read about synergy chains and just imagined how difficult it would be to plan ahead what your char is going to be with all those interlinks.
A simple aptitudes and skills tree with soft cap and some additional skills that branch off from the main ones is a much better system. While i like complexity and usually criticise modern games that run towards casualness - SF is going to be deep, complex and enjoyable on itself without synergies.
I'm honestly just glad I won't have to use the word Synergies after this moment
Alex, this is all really great, but could you please, please change "Ordnance Expert" to "Ordnance Expertise" ? It kills me to have one skill fall out of (grammatical) alignment :'(
Erm, "Gunnery Implants" and "Computer Systems" aren't aligned either. I'll give the naming a bit more thought, though.
Is all the skill and stuff getting its own GUI? Will David make a bunch more of those lil' icons for each skill and all that jazz? Having it look slick and artsy is always a plus!
Would you say you've done a lot of the harder skill system work now? Like you've laid down the framework and now you'll have a much easier time of adding, arranging and editing new skills into the game? Really wanting to be able to enjoy another layer of customization and content so I'm pretty stoked that this is gonna be getting the spotlight for a time. ;D
uh i dont think that would work because he would be skilled in/at helmsmanship for example
Yeah, sorry that I'm a *** about that unimportant stuff, just bugs me a bit. If you put "skilled with" in front of the skill, that works (more or less) with every skill and perk (including Implants and Systems) except "Ordnance Expert". I'm no native speaker anyway, so maybe it's all rubbish :DSpoiler
skilled withOrdnance Expert (perks:skilled with Secured Magazines,skilled with Optimized Assembly)- skilled with Damage Control (perks: skilled with Compartmentalization, skilled with Rapid Response Teams)
- skilled with Target Analysis (perks: skilled with Precision Fire, skilled with Active Frequency Detection)
- skilled with Evasive Action (perks: skilled with Evasion, skilled with Deflection)
- skilled with Helmsmanship (perks: skilled with Maximum Power, skilled with Dynamic Stabilization)
- skilled with Gunnery Implants (perks: skilled with Neural Diagnostics, skilled with Weapon Proprioception)
- skilled with Mechanical Engineering (perks: skilled with Effective Maintenance)
- skilled with Computer Systems
[close]
- A "75%" player ship damage option
- Slightly decrease the flux consumption on the Plasma Cannon, otherwise it is really not even on par with the AutopulseDo I need to make a thread explaining how energy weapons work, why they work, and why high flux/damage ratios isn't a damning trait?
Well I am waiting with baited breath for this release good sir!- Slightly decrease the flux consumption on the Plasma Cannon, otherwise it is really not even on par with the AutopulseDo I need to make a thread explaining how energy weapons work, why they work, and why high flux/damage ratios isn't a damning trait?
uh i dont think that would work because he would be skilled in/at helmsmanship for example
sadly it will probably be harder than that
FWIW, my feeling is that the Plasma Cannon is borderline too good, even considering the OP cost. The flux consumption is high, but it absolutely wrecks anything it hits. Doesn't even compare with the Autopulse - which is decent enough now, but not in the same league damage-wise. Having more OP to play around with due to skills is only going to make the PC better.
Edit: although, this is based on using it prior to the bug fix with the flux damage multiplier. I'll take another look and see how it feels.
Edit #2: An Apogee with one still mauls a pair of Enforcers, even with a terrible loadout otherwise and with me playing extremely badly. Doesn't feel that much different than before.
FWIW, my feeling is that the Plasma Cannon is borderline too good, even considering the OP cost. The flux consumption is high, but it absolutely wrecks anything it hits. Doesn't even compare with the Autopulse - which is decent enough now, but not in the same league damage-wise. Having more OP to play around with due to skills is only going to make the PC better.
Edit: although, this is based on using it prior to the bug fix with the flux damage multiplier. I'll take another look and see how it feels.
Edit #2: An Apogee with one still mauls a pair of Enforcers, even with a terrible loadout otherwise and with me playing extremely badly. Doesn't feel that much different than before.
- A "75%" player ship damage option
What if it was a scale? That would be much cleaner on UI with lot more options.
I have to agree that plasma cannons are great weapons - a dual plasma Odyssey can destroy an Enforcer in one broadside. I think they are not overpowered though - I have to really specialize the Odyssey build to pull off dual plasma. :POh MAN I'm having alot of fun with this load out!
I have to agree that plasma cannons are great weapons - a dual plasma Odyssey can destroy an Enforcer in one broadside. I think they are not overpowered though - I have to really specialize the Odyssey build to pull off dual plasma. :POh MAN I'm having alot of fun with this load out!
MutableStat getZeroFluxMinimumFluxLevel()
I have to agree that plasma cannons are great weapons - a dual plasma Odyssey can destroy an Enforcer in one broadside. I think they are not overpowered though - I have to really specialize the Odyssey build to pull off dual plasma. :P
I'm not sure, but if you google for example "skilled with craftsmanship" you get lots of results. So I think it might be uncommon, but possible. But hell, whatever, I will get over it either way.good / bad / excellent / brilliant / hopeless (16) AT (doing) something:
... But if Alex does a scale, I would put forth that the upper limit of that scale be 200% :D
Looks cool as usual. I'm looking forward to trying this out, I haven't been disappointed by a feature so far, and it doesn't look like I will in the near future :)
Plasma cannon is really interesting weapon but in the current version they dont seem all that great....after the patch that surely could change but im afraid they might end up being dead weight like the Tach Lance.....anyone here using Tach Lance?
Plasma cannon is really interesting weapon but in the current version they dont seem all that great....after the patch that surely could change but im afraid they might end up being dead weight like the Tach Lance.....anyone here using Tach Lance?
Why don't you say what the skills do :(
Why don't you say what the skills do :(
Why, to fuel rampant speculation, of course.
Evasive Action (perks: Evasion, Deflection)
Hows that for rampant? :P
I just hope they won't be too powerful, a Lasher shouldn't be able to beat a hyperion afterall.I accept that challenge, haha.
Skill: Trap EvasionWhy don't you say what the skills do :(
Why, to fuel rampant speculation, of course.
Well then in this spirit:QuoteEvasive Action (perks: Evasion, Deflection)
The evasion perk will cause a certain % of projectiles to pass through the user - if the user is surrounded the ships on either side will be shooting each other!
The deflection perk will cause a certain % of projectiles to bounce off the hull at semi-random angles determined by the bounding polygon.
Hows that for rampant? :P
I just hope they won't be too powerful, a Lasher shouldn't be able to beat a hyperion afterall.well under the right conditons why not? i mean even the most powerful ship or fighter is rather useless if the guy on the captains chair is completely dumb....add to that a crew that has no idea what its doing and voila....recipe for disaster ::)
I just hope they won't be too powerful, a Lasher shouldn't be able to beat a hyperion afterall.well under the right conditons why not? i mean even the most powerful ship or fighter is rather useless if the guy on the captains chair is completely dumb....add to that a crew that has no idea what its doing and voila....recipe for disaster ::)
just an example from history: the battle of leyte gulf....bunch of DDs and DEs with few escort carriers drove of heavy strike fleet simply because the japs had made too many mistakes and didnt have will to press on the attack....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxcLabPfik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxcLabPfik)
having a good hardware is great but having the same hardware or even bit worse hardware BUT much better training will produce much better results
Why, to fuel rampant speculation, of course.
Optimized AssemblyLess OP for weapons.
CompartmentalizationLess hull damage.
Rapid Response TeamsFaster system repairs.
Precision FireLess spread for weapons/less recoil, or more damage dealt by weapons.
Active Frequency DetectionTell enemy moves/orders/targets.
DeflectionLess armor damage from ballistics/everything.
Weapon ProprioceptionFaster turrets, or less spread for weapons/less recoil.
Effective MaintenanceLess supplies needed per day.
@Tarran: 1/10. Not rampant at all, and surprisingly accurate.
Btw: Damage Control's perks are now "Triage" and "Emergency Repairs".
Wait, can enemy admirals even get skills?Yes, "eventually".
Will the enemy fleets also be using the skills and perks? If not, that would be a sizable advantage to the player.
Eventually, yes. For the next release, probably no. The way it's coded is specifically designed so that it can apply to any fleet/ship, though, not just the player's.
Damn you Russian! Release the beast already! ;D
I'd like to see a "Formation Toggle" option for the fighters that can switch them between staying in a focused formation and splitting off to dogfight and whatnot. Make it not take any CPs, so you could change their formations at will. Because there are quite a few times I'd like fighters to stay in a formation to focus fire on a larger target...and quite a few times I'd like to see them scatter WAY before they get near a flak-packing capital ship.
But even if that doesn't happen, will the fighters at least try to stay in formation when they're not fighting (IE: Just travelling across the map)? I really like seeing tons of fighters stream across the map in perfect formations. I'm fine with them scattering to dogfight when they reach their targets, but seeing them in formation when they're on an attack approach is too cool to take out of the game.
You accidentally put the September 21st changes twice, but other than that looks good. =) Especially like the reduced FP cost for the Doom, although I would have rather it become more powerful instead.
Aw yeah! Seems like stuff is pretty nailed down now, release soon?
It's probably to relieve some of the overly heated debate we've seen surrounding such a thing, haha.
Also don't rush the man. I expect a few more weeks of tinkering/bug fixing and new features.
Well, it's both - don't underestimate the impact of being able to dissipate soft flux while phased.
It's the "always save on exit, no reloading" mode.Sweeeeeeeet. :D
There I fixed it. ;PAlso don't rush the man. I expect a few more months of tinkering/bug fixing and new features.
Oh, the irony of that being intended as not rushing me :)
I don't get why they need arbitary penalties to the modifications. But whatever.
I don't get why they need arbitary penalties to the modifications. But whatever.
I don't get why they need arbitary penalties to the modifications. But whatever.
One would assume to not make them no-brainers.
Then why don't all hull mods have penalties. The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.Some of the choices are interesting enough just with op cost. Usually the weaker ones.
Then why don't all hull mods have penalties. The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.Some of the choices are interesting enough just with op cost. Usually the weaker ones.
Then why don't all hull mods have penalties. The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.Some of the choices are interesting enough just with op cost. Usually the weaker ones.
So instead of making the less useful hullmods more useful you nerf the better ones so that they're just as balanced as the rest of the mods?
Then why don't all hull mods have penalties. The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.Some of the choices are interesting enough just with op cost. Usually the weaker ones.
So instead of making the less useful hullmods more useful you nerf the better ones so that they're just as balanced as the rest of the mods?
Fixed it for you. Take a deep breath before posting ;)
I just saw this all happen before where whatever was good was nerfed until you were flummoxed by indecision because everything was terrible.
Then why don't all hull mods have penalties. The only reason I can think of is penalizing popular mods because they're popular.
in regards to the change:
why does the aug engine need such a hardcore downside, when the other mods that support other playstyles do not? why do people that want speedy ships have to get hit so hard if they choose to not want to be locked into a specific ship set?
I think it's a very minor downside, actually.
If your engines are getting hit to the point where they're flaming out, you've got bigger problems.
but I do feel the downside of it is getting blown way out of proportion.
and i feel you're vastly downplaying it so people just go along with it with the least amount of fuss, your blanket statement above kindof proves that.
...Aw yeah! Seems like stuff is pretty nailed down now, release soon?
Not quite :) These are initial skill implementations - now I get to spend lots of time tweaking things until they feel right. There are also a few other things I want to get into this release. Or, at least, am seriously considering.
and i feel you're vastly downplaying it so people just go along with it with the least amount of fuss, your blanket statement above kindof proves that.
Ich schmeiß mich weg!
And I feel you try to make it sound as if Alex was some kind of evil dictator, trying to raise our taxes and cut our liberties and sell it to us as progress, and you are the only one to notice. Is that how you feel?
Besides, the numbers a clear: On a eagle you need 13 Op to cancel the current effect, but only 9 for insulated engines, which cancels the double engine damage. On a Aurora the difference is 22:9. On a Medusa 10:6. On a tempest 6:3. On a Paragon 32:15. So it's clearly a buff for Augmented engines.
Seems as if I missed a lot. More debate? Could I join in?
I don't think getting shot in the engines with missiles is random.
(Another point: the flux dissipation penalty can't be compensated for if you're already at full vents - which is fairly common for smaller ships.)
Comparing the ARU like that misses the fact that it has an impact beyond just engine repair.
I don't think Insulated Engines should be discounted, either
he potential downside is greater, or at least more concentrated in time, but on the other hand, it can be much reduced with skill.
pilums coming out of the FoW (either due to some flanking ship or something behind you, or they are coming back for another try) is random.That's not really random. You might not get the opportunity to react, but it's predictable (Pilums will be coming from the top half of the screen (or you've already seen them go past once and know they're coming back), you can see which ships have Salamanders from their loadout), negatable (PD) and suprise pilums can be countered by better scouting. You need tactical & strategic awareness; you can't just rely on agility to dodge all attacks with no notice. If your ship has no PD and you can't scout then it may not be a good idea to stick Augmented Engines on it and send it off on its own.
salamander speed boost, while it goes off at the same time, is random because we can't see WHEN it will off.
you can't even tell when a ship is or isn't going to launch a missile, so yes it is a rather random.
its not even just the potential downside, there's also the downside of just being unable to wade into combat, you actually HAVE to consider things more critically, whereas armour / shield mod users do not. this is where it's fairly inbalanced, one playstyle has to work a fair bit harder to achieve the same result that actually is EASIER for the other 2 as they aren't even at that bad of a disadvantage, as most of the ships that need to move quick either has a way to do so ( jets / burn drive ) are naturally fast (hound, anything high tech) can tele ( anything high tech ) or can have long range weapons ( just about everything above destroyer ).Speed is incredibly valuable thanks to the cap points. Having speedier ships gives you move FP, more range, more maneuverability and yet more speed in combat and is also useful on the system map. More speed lets you pick and choose which targets to engage and when to disengage, letting you drop shields & vent safely (so you don't need to take hits on armour to vent). Yes, you have to work more to perform to par with ships set up to armour/shield tank in a straight-up fight, but that's the price you pay for all the side benefits.
This list is looking great, Alex! Really excited about this next build, it's going to take the game a big step towards feeling like a full-fledged RPG :)
Any chance we're going to see a Mutablestat that can affect in-system travel speed for fleets yet? Really want to do that as a System or via character skill, it's one of the few major gripes I've had with the campaign's feel lately :)
int getSkillPoints();
int getAptitudePoints();
void setSkillPoints(int points);
void setAptitudePoints(int points);
void addAptitudePoints(int points);
void addSkillPoints(int points);
void increaseSkill(String id);
void increaseAptitude(String id);
void setSkillLevel(String id, float level);
void setAptitudeLevel(String id, float level);
float getAptitudeLevel(String id);
/**
* Only returns whole numbers. Float is used for convenience to avoid some extra casting. Other methods work likewise.
* @param id
* @return
*/
float getSkillLevel(String id);
MutableStat getWeaponOPCostMult();
StatBonus getShipOrdnancePointBonus();
StatBonus getSmallWeaponOPCost();
StatBonus getMediumWeaponOPCost();
StatBonus getLargeWeaponOPCost();
MutableStat getFleetPoints();
MutableStat getCommandPoints();
MutableStat getMarineEffectivnessMult();
MutableStat getCrewXPGainMult();
MutableStat getFleetSizeTravelPenaltyMult();
//StatBonus getCombatDeploymentCost();
StatBonus getMaxCapacitorsBonus();
StatBonus getMaxVentsBonus();
StatBonus getTravelSpeedBonus();
MutableStat getFriendlyShipRepairChance();
MutableStat getEnemyShipRepairChance();
MutableStat getTravelRepairRateMult();
I'm not against the change to aug-engines what I am against is that hull mods >need< to have a penalty assoicated to them. I was mainly complaining about the first time penalties were introduced because it just seemed like a waste of time. Adding a penalty to Advanced Optics and Augumented Engines just seemed like a case of "It's popular therefore it's overpowered".I liked using advanced optics before, but I felt like the extra range for low OP was a bit cheap, and I put it on every ship that had a beam weapon. Now, I at least have to think about it first, and I like that too. I won't put it on a ship that uses lots of PD lasers because they need to turn fast to track missiles. I like having to choose carefully what I want my build to be, instead of always going with my favorite hull mods every time. However, I wouldn't mind it if some hull mods didn't have downsides because they're a bit weaker or only useful in certain situations.
So much arguing going on around here. I can barely keep my head straight. But I just wanted to mention something that occurred to me while reading the above post.I'm not against the change to aug-engines what I am against is that hull mods >need< to have a penalty assoicated to them. I was mainly complaining about the first time penalties were introduced because it just seemed like a waste of time. Adding a penalty to Advanced Optics and Augumented Engines just seemed like a case of "It's popular therefore it's overpowered".I liked using advanced optics before, but I felt like the extra range for low OP was a bit cheap, and I put it on every ship that had a beam weapon. Now, I at least have to think about it first, and I like that too. I won't put it on a ship that uses lots of PD lasers because they need to turn fast to track missiles. I like having to choose carefully what I want my build to be, instead of always going with my favorite hull mods every time. However, I wouldn't mind it if some hull mods didn't have downsides because they're a bit weaker or only useful in certain situations.
So much arguing going on around here. I can barely keep my head straight.
Yep, that's already there (the "Navigation" skill uses it).Wonderful; I can't wait to upgrade my skills to the point where my Evil Pirate Fleet can actually catch those pesky Indies as they flit back and forth with their tempting cargoes of Duranium :)
However, I wouldn't mind it if some hull mods didn't have downsides because they're a bit weaker or only useful in certain situations.
Anyways, will skills be moddable?
As always great work, now here comes me being greedy, blame human nature!
Could you add Station (battles) in this patch or a small one after this one, with that and maybe mining would pretty much closed any work needed in system wise, opening the new work on the galaxy map (multiple solar systems).
I don't think that's the order things are going to go in - I'd like to more firmly establish the role stations play in the game first. Right now they just kind of magically exist.
What I mean is, you don't do the mining yourself, you just toss a space station near an asteroid belt and on a daily basis it produces stuff you then take this stuff to another place for it to convert it into supplies/weapons/ships, wich in turn you can put in your other stations for them to be sold...Or just use'em yourself...
OK, this request is a for modding only, you know that HIDDEN weapons fire from the weapon position from the top of the ship, well some mods like total conversions have ships with weapons Below the ship, id like to ask would be have 2 types of HIDDEN weapons, the HIDDEN_UNDER, would make the actual weapon fire under the hull, this is specially important on the Star Trek mod where alot of weaponry is under the hull.
That's my solution, DJ.oh sorry didnt know anyone is using that it was just an idea based on the description of the problem ;)
Er, I wasn't saying you stole the idea or anything like that, just concurring with you.yeah i know ;) just kidding....and tbh i had no idea if that would really work so its good someone confirmed it really does work
The last update was just 5 days ago... ::)And now it's been 6. :o
World of tanks had the best update of the year today. With StarFarer did to. I might have just ran out said and yelled YES as loud as i could.
It's been nearly 10 days. What's being cooked up? :)Find a new game, a new hobby, or a job.
Thanks you. -_-It's been nearly 10 days. What's being cooked up? :)Find a new game, a new hobby, or a job.
I hate the slowing down going round a planet, then being pounced on by someone you've *** off.That just means you're doing it wrong. ;)
...skill that allows you to bypass planetational gravity? I see it in one of the screenshots.
Actually, I see the "0%" in the top left. Maybe not in that screenshot, but could there be a skill for it?Questions? 8)
Spoilerthe game is pretty good by the way. i bought it. i know, i was surprised too. hell, we may be undergoing a space-genre renaissance. exciting times.[close]
space-genre renaissance. exciting times.
Spoilerthe game is pretty good by the way. i bought it. i know, i was surprised too. hell, we may be undergoing a space-genre renaissance. exciting times.[close]
Good you put that in spoiler tags so I had time to prepare before reading. ...
are you making fun of me sir? i'll have you know that i take things said on the internet VERY SERIOUSLY
Maybe Alex need lots of time to balance things now. And he did go with "chains", but he abandon that idea. So, you know, lots of new stuff some gets implemented some gets replaced etc. you need time to balance all that out.
Call it a bonus for the next update, if it all works out like I hope :) Experimentation doesn't lend itself well to patch-notes-style updates, though.
Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Maybe I should stop. -_-
EDIT:
Ninj'd by Alex. ;D And two weeks, after I looked a few other patches, I guess is pretty common. Guess I was ready for a 3-4 day patch note like the last one. :)
Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Why would you want more solar systems as of now when they will all be carbon copy of another with no real features to distinguish them apart (because there are no game mechanics that can create any meaningful variety yet)?
Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Why would you want more solar systems as of now when they will all be carbon copy of another with no real features to distinguish them apart (because there are no game mechanics that can create any meaningful variety yet)?
More because of the modding side, its the part of the mod that takes the longest since you need to create a custom galaxy, so getting this early even with nothing new added would be great...
Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Why would you want more solar systems as of now when they will all be carbon copy of another with no real features to distinguish them apart (because there are no game mechanics that can create any meaningful variety yet)?
More because of the modding side, its the part of the mod that takes the longest since you need to create a custom galaxy, so getting this early even with nothing new added would be great...
^^ This
More content that's playable and fun is going to be better for encouraging new buyers, to help keep the game funded, than content aimed at a minority of people who already have it. It's great Alex is so supportive of modding and mods are an excellent way of adding more play time, but mods (and total conversion mods, which are generally some of the less popular) shouldn't be prioritised over improving the actual *game*.Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Why would you want more solar systems as of now when they will all be carbon copy of another with no real features to distinguish them apart (because there are no game mechanics that can create any meaningful variety yet)?
More because of the modding side, its the part of the mod that takes the longest since you need to create a custom galaxy, so getting this early even with nothing new added would be great...
More content that's playable and fun is going to be better for encouraging new buyers, to help keep the game funded, than content aimed at a minority of people who already have it. It's great Alex is so supportive of modding and mods are an excellent way of adding more play time, but mods (and total conversion mods, which are generally some of the less popular) shouldn't be prioritized over improving the actual *game*.Personaly the only thing im really looking forward to now is more then one solar system. Untill then, back burner ho?
Why would you want more solar systems as of now when they will all be carbon copy of another with no real features to distinguish them apart (because there are no game mechanics that can create any meaningful variety yet)?
More because of the modding side, its the part of the mod that takes the longest since you need to create a custom galaxy, so getting this early even with nothing new added would be great...
the "bonus feature" seems to be shaping up nicely.
- the "bonus feature" seems to be shaping up nicely.Did you really have to say that? >:( i dont mind surprises as long as i dont know about them but this? 8) Thats inhumane and cruel! ;D
I probably shouldn't call it a bonus "feature". It is, however, a major update to something that I've wanted to update for quite a while :)That however doesnt make it any less cruel ;) good news though....its great to know how its shaping up
Yes, I know, more cruelty. The inhumanity of it!
You are a contradictory tyrant. First you tell us not to be impatient, then you tell us that there's a super-secret that you're working on. How do you expect us to be patient now?!That really made me laugh :D
You are a contradictory tyrant. First you tell us not to be impatient, then you tell us that there's a super-secret that you're working on. How do you expect us to be patient now?!That really made me laugh :D
Ok, some wild guessing...mh, if Alex wanted to update it for quite a while, it has to exist for some time, so maybe it's not campaign related.
Possibly it's the combat command interface? There were some hints that new orders are under consideration...
Rampent speculation:
A tree! It's gonna be tree! A tree in space! It's gonna be a really big tree in space!
Alex did mention a while back that the current faction system is only temporary, maybe that's what is being updated?
This can not be considered rampant speculation but an educated guess!!! :P
An update to something...second-in-command outcomes and battle glitches? I always want to toss him out the airlock, but alas, he's not part of the crew. :)I know that feeling. ;)
It's ice cream. All new versions of the game come with ice cream in the mail. He's sorry for the mess.
(Apologies to those looking at this post expecting an update! Soon, soon. (tm).)and he continues to torment me....someone should arrest this man for his crimes against humanity ;D
"Log Date 10-11-2012"tm
"Pentakill, one of the last survivors"
"Low on food and water, all hope is almost lost, why has our god forsaken us, where is the update?!?!"
"We must not give up hope, I hear whispers at night"
"always the same..."
"sooooooon... sooooooooon.."
At least I got X-Com to make this wait for this patch a lot more bearable.
Radical guessing=
Maybe it's 10 more factions :P
Realistically maybe faction relations stuff?
( just bought the game, it's awesome!)
So the control scheme is going more towards some kind of the current version and a standard RTS scheme?
I'm so glad to see some RTS-style controls appear in the command UI again! I always missed that from 0.33. I agree that it did make you spend too much time controlling other ships, but I think that since then the UI has gone too far in the other direction, and assigning a specific ship to a specific task has been rather unwieldy.
Looks all good. Dosnt seem like there is to much work left on major features, so im hoping for a release soon!TMWell he still has to tweak and play with the new control scheme, and we don't know if he's done with the campaign stuff. So I'd not get my hopes up for any time actually soon. :)
Looks all good. Dosnt seem like there is to much work left on major features, so im hoping for a release soon!TMWell he still has to tweak and play with the new control scheme, and we don't know if he's done with the campaign stuff. So I'd not get my hopes up for any time actually soon. :)
At least a couple months more... ;p
MONTHS!? Damnit!I was mostly kidding... Every time I tell people not to rush Alex he says it is more ironic than anything else b/c I give too short a time frame, haha. So I am attempting to just say this all the time now.
ANYwho, back on topic: What are the current aptitudes? I can't find them in the original post.
Hmm...maybe I should check the main page more often and not just the New bar. ;D
And so, the command UI change was the big suprise? Or are we all still waiting eagerly to unwrap it? :)
Hrm, so combat bonus is attack damage? Aaaaand tech bonus is op limit? :D no.... what would tech give you. Hrmm....
Not bad, 2 for 2.Booyeah! Let's hear it for wild speculation, haha.
Think the command UI deserves a blog post? It's not much, but then again, it going to affect how I send out my bombers and fighters into a wall of flak, so yea. :)
Control groups (Ctrl-1, etc), persistent between battles in the campaign
Improved ship armor schematic graphics, especially for fighters (smoother, not pixelated)
Control groups (Ctrl-1, etc), persistent between battles in the campaign
Awesome. Can these control groups be adjusted out-of-combat as well, or do you need to be in an engagement to change them? Does a control group have any affect on ship movement, positioning, and/or AI?
EDIT: Perhaps a little more clarity on my second question. If I have a few ships that belong to control group 1, will they stay near each other on their own and/or attack the same targets? Or is this purely a management change and has no affect on the AI?
From what I understand this is merging the current assignment system with the old classic RTS style move order commands?
Miscellaneous:
Disabled ships repaired after battle now lose their hull mods and vents/capacitors
Miscellaneous:
Disabled ships repaired after battle now lose their hull mods and vents/capacitors
Why was this change made, what is its purpose?
I know you usually don't give out ETA's, but do you have any feeling when this might be released? nothing accurate, just in the ballpark.. end of this month? mid-next month?
I know you usually don't give out ETA's, but do you have any feeling when this might be released? nothing accurate, just in the ballpark.. end of this month? mid-next month?
I would. I disappear from the face of the earth when an update comes out, and being able to plan for that would really help. ;)I know you usually don't give out ETA's, but do you have any feeling when this might be released? nothing accurate, just in the ballpark.. end of this month? mid-next month?Planning a Starfarer vacation?^^
I know you usually don't give out ETA's, but do you have any feeling when this might be released? nothing accurate, just in the ballpark.. end of this month? mid-next month?
Oh, one more control group question if I may:
In control group 1 I have Talon wings A, B, & C. However, at the start of the engagement I can only deploy wings A & B. If I hit #1, is the game "smart" enough to select wings A & B for me, or is this only going to work with all three wings deployed? A little bit later, I get enough FP to deploy wing C. If I hit #1 when all three are deployed, does it still select all three wings, or only group A & B?
I remember some other RTS had this problem, but I can't remember which one.
Sorry - there can be no chink in the soon(tm) armor :)
and a Question: Do groups get assigned together to an assignment and what happens if the group doesn't deploy all at once or becomes spread out? Is the eligibility of a group: counted according to group aptitude or by most apt ship(s) (same for all other - eg strike, ETA)?
These can only be managed during combat, and are just a shortcut to selecting specific ships or groups of ships - no effect on the AI whatsoever.
Sorry - there can be no chink in the soon(tm) armor :)
Well I've been playing Starfarer too long... The first thing that popped into my head when I read that was a though on how we need to stop using Kinetic comments and switch over to HE :)
Closing a loophole by which you could (unreliably, and causing other UI issues) get a hull mod you would otherwise not have access to.
Does this apply to disabled ones or does this apply to ones that are your own ships that are repaired after battle?Are they treated differently by the game? Kinda thought they were essentially the same.
So I was wondering Alex, are you now pretty much completely rounding off the combat UI? As in we won't see any more edits or additions or...?
a click when the selection is empty creates a waypoint. Otherwise, it clears the selection.
Just one tiny concern on the command channel, couldn't it technically be abused by creating an order and then rescinding it in order to get the benefits of command channel? I also had this crazy thought that you'd be pretty stupid to not pause with the channel open, how do you circumvent that?
Sounds great! Especially the command channel is interesting. I still got a bunch of questions, but let me just ask a comprehension question:Quotea click when the selection is empty creates a waypoint. Otherwise, it clears the selection.
Doesn't that mean that you can't create a waypoint while you got ships selected? I thought the whole point of the new concept is that you can make waypoints/assignments while you've got ships selected?
This would be a blank waypoint, I think, with no assignment.
When you have people selected you right-click to create an assignment (with it's associated waypoint).
By the way Alex, did this post (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.msg68544#msg68544) inspire you to create the command channel perchance? It reads a bit like a lore-prelude to only being able to open a channel for a few seconds.
I also had this crazy thought that you'd be pretty stupid to not pause with the channel open, how do you circumvent that?
Talking about the music, it seems to me that the combat music has gone, or is that just me?
So, any sound updates being worked on? Music? Sound Effects? I'm hoping the game will soon have some music to blow up baddies to.
So, any sound updates being worked on? Music? Sound Effects? I'm hoping the game will soon have some music to blow up baddies to.
Yes, actually. But, don't expect anything over-the-top - the combat track is ambient, rather than something designed to pump you up.
So, any sound updates being worked on? Music? Sound Effects? I'm hoping the game will soon have some music to blow up baddies to.
Yes, actually. But, don't expect anything over-the-top - the combat track is ambient, rather than something designed to pump you up.
Personally, after the first 20min of gameplay, I usually turn off in-game music. I know it's suppose to add to the atmosphere like in movies but game is a different medium. I really dislike the repetitive sound tracks (after +20hr of playing) and prefer the 'silence' that draws you in a little more into the game.
Anyone else play their favourite games with the music off?
I generally stay away from albums when playing games from the risk of association.
Oh god, where have you been with that warning 10 years ago? I still friggin dream of playing Morrowind (you know, levitation spell) with Nightwishes walking in the air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okItHetxgy8), and I don't even like band that much anymore.
A bit more on topic: hoping to update the notes in the near future :)
Control/Capture: Automatically updated to call in comparable forces to match what the enemy has in the area.
On second glance: Some kind of avoid order is noticeably absent?
"avoid if you're smaller" sounds best. A lone fighter/bomber wing or a frigate won't stand much chance against a cruiser or a capital ship.
And "Rally Task Force" command, can you get it to rally a control group to it?
Oh god, where have you been with that warning 10 years ago? I still friggin dream of playing Morrowind (you know, levitation spell) with Nightwishes walking in the air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okItHetxgy8), and I don't even like band that much anymore.
Odd fact: listening to Nightwish right now. But yeah, I can't hear "Jamie's Got a Gun" w/o linking it with HoMM3 - and all I did was leave it on repeat a few times, oh, what is it, 10+ years ago now? The mind is a terrible thing.
A bit more on topic: hoping to update the notes in the near future :)
Hmm - let me give that a bit of thought. I'm not sure how useful that would be, since it seems like you only want certain ships to avoid certain other ships, and it gets to be a mess. I may give a global "avoid" order a try, though - or, perhaps, an "avoid it if you're smaller". What I don't want to end up with is multiple flavors of "avoid" orders. I also don't want to go down the road of multiple assignments on the same target, and some flavors of "avoid" may point in that direction.
SpoilerTwo scenarios spring to mind in which I'd want an avoid order.
A) A big, slow target and multiple smaller target are on the field. I want my ships to avoid the big one and kill the small ones to gang up on the big at the end.
B) A enemy is fleeing and one of my ships is in pursuit. I put avoid on the enemy to make my ship stay in combat.
In both cases a global avoid command would be better than "avoid if smaller". In A) One of my ships might match the big target, engage it, and delay the destruction of the small stuff. In B) my pursuing ship is probably not smaller anyway.
Hmm...How about "avoid if you are not vastly superior"? That would have the intended outcome in case A) and B). And it would eschew strange issues where a battleships tries to avoid a destroyer.
I'm not sure how aware ships of are of their allies, but if they could notice when they are "vastly superior" as a group scenario A) might even play out without the need to revoke the avoid order at the end.[close]
don't chase a retreating ship if you're both out of weapon range by some margin and also slower or of equal speed
...
Control/Capture: Automatically updated to call in comparable forces to match what the enemy has in the area.
...
Ok this is just bizzare. I actually have listened to and "discovered" Nightwish (had heard of it but never really listened to it) while modding this game... so its pretty much been the only thing I've been listening to while modding.Oh god, where have you been with that warning 10 years ago? I still friggin dream of playing Morrowind (you know, levitation spell) with Nightwishes walking in the air (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okItHetxgy8), and I don't even like band that much anymore.
Odd fact: listening to Nightwish right now. But yeah, I can't hear "Jamie's Got a Gun" w/o linking it with HoMM3 - and all I did was leave it on repeat a few times, oh, what is it, 10+ years ago now? The mind is a terrible thing.
A bit more on topic: hoping to update the notes in the near future :)
I listen to Nightwish sometimes when I play too! Alex and me have something in common! My life is complete!
Engage: bombers and support fighters assigned to engage a target will behave as if on a strike assignment - i.e, make a concerted effort at an attack run without getting distracted.Let say i have selected 2 fighters wing and 3 bombers (and let's say that fighters are faster then bombers) wing and give them orders to ENGAGE Enforcer. Will they stick together until bombers drop they payload on Enforcer or will fighters go ahead and engage it sooner then bombers. Will they come back together to carrier for bomber resupply and then go again together on Enforcer?
chasing ships is complicated
There is a certain advantage in having a single ship preventing/slowing the capture of a point without being able to capture it itself. This allow you to have a sort of space-denial doctrine, using a small force to both entangle enemy ships in a pointless combat and slow there gain of an asset , with a small chance of actually taking the point. Will this be possible post patch (/can the harass order be applied to a capture point)
It might be a bit extreme, but maybe just have non-strike fighters and frigates automatically avoid all capital ships unless under a direct order or escorting another ship? Often times a frigate or fighter will route itself next to an enemy capital ship to get to a far away objective and get promptly get mauled.
Hmm - let me give that a bit of thought. I'm not sure how useful that would be, since it seems like you only want certain ships to avoid certain other ships, and it gets to be a mess. I may give a global "avoid" order a try, though - or, perhaps, an "avoid it if you're smaller". What I don't want to end up with is multiple flavors of "avoid" orders. I also don't want to go down the road of multiple assignments on the same target, and some flavors of "avoid" may point in that direction.
Two scenarios spring to mind in which I'd want an avoid order.
A) A big, slow target and multiple smaller target are on the field. I want my ships to avoid the big one and kill the small ones to gang up on the big at the end.
B) A enemy is fleeing and one of my ships is in pursuit. I put avoid on the enemy to make my ship stay in combat.
In both cases a global avoid command would be better than "avoid if smaller". In A) One of my ships might match the big target, engage it, and delay the destruction of the small stuff. In B) my pursuing ship is probably not smaller anyway.
Hmm...How about "avoid if you are not vastly superior"? That would have the intended outcome in case A) and B). And it would eschew strange issues where a battleships tries to avoid a destroyer.
I'm not sure how aware ships of are of their allies, but if they could notice when they are "vastly superior" as a group scenario A) might even play out without the need to revoke the avoid order at the end.
There is a certain advantage in having a single ship preventing/slowing the capture of a point without being able to capture it itself. This allow you to have a sort of space-denial doctrine, using a small force to both entangle enemy ships in a pointless combat and slow there gain of an asset , with a small chance of actually taking the point. Will this be possible post patch (/can the harass order be applied to a capture point)
Let say i have selected 2 fighters wing and 3 bombers (and let's say that fighters are faster then bombers) wing and give them orders to ENGAGE Enforcer. Will they stick together until bombers drop they payload on Enforcer or will fighters go ahead and engage it sooner then bombers. Will they come back together to carrier for bomber resupply and then go again together on Enforcer?
Say there are two nodes, A and B. Me and the AI has roughly equivalent size fleet.
I order control/capture on A, assault on B.
AI orders assault on A, nothing on B (unlikely, I know, but for sake of this theorycraft bear with me please).
What will happen here? Will my fleet AI split my forces evenly between A and B (basically treat large enemy concentration on A as an assault order)? Or will it actually send more units to A, 'overriding' the assault order in order to match the AI's fleet on A?
We can give escort commands to entire group or just to specific ship? So can i have group A and give it escort group B?
Can engage be made to focus on a specific ship rather than trying to attack everything nearby?
By the way Alex, since you are working on the combat UI:
Re: Avoid -
I gave it a try, but it's not going to happen.
Ah, but I'm not :) (command, not combat)
How you tried to say to the AI just stay out of the enemy's weapon ranges? Excluding the TL and Philum missiles, anything that's a fire support weapon. That way it might be able to pay attention to combat while staying away, maybe?
(I know nothing of java or how to code it, aside from modding. Just a friendly suggestion to fix that problem is all)
Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in regards to modding, would there be a way to make a hullmod that, when active on a ship, affects a character's stats? i.e., putting a sensor array hullmod on a ship that increases your max fleet points by 10, or putting some fire-control module on a ship that increases your fleet's accuracy.
Or, better yet, would it be possible to do a similar thing with ship systems, in the sense of certain ships giving fleet-wide bonuses? Hmm, though, come to think of it, I don't think there's a way to do always-active ship systems, so that might not work all that well for what I want it to be used for.
Let's not turn this thread into request-a-feature - that's what the suggestions forum is for.
Ok, this is a bit presumptuous considering I was the one it was said to, but as Alex said:I'm not requesting a feature--I'm inquiring about the modding capabilities of this upcoming update.Let's not turn this thread into request-a-feature - that's what the suggestions forum is for.
Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in regards to modding, would there be a way to make a hullmod that, when active on a ship, affects a character's stats? i.e., putting a sensor array hullmod on a ship that increases your max fleet points by 10, or putting some fire-control module on a ship that increases your fleet's accuracy.
Or, better yet, would it be possible to do a similar thing with ship systems, in the sense of certain ships giving fleet-wide bonuses? Hmm, though, come to think of it, I don't think there's a way to do always-active ship systems, so that might not work all that well for what I want it to be used for.
Also, it occurred to me that I should attempt to stay on-topic, so here:
I'm going to miss the "performance metrics" which I assume are FPS and CPU measurements. Sure, I always use devmode nowadays, but even in normal mode I always liked being able to look at my frames per second to see how well my computer was handling everything.
Hmm. As far as modifying character skills, I was thinking of maybe having items be able to do that, down the line. I don't like the idea of having hullmods do this, because then you have incentive to toggle between a "combat" loadout and a "non-combat" one (assuming some of these modified non-combat skills). Yeah, there's a refit time - added specifically as a deterrent for this type of thing - so it might work but... I don't know. Bears some thought - I just don't want to end up with a situation where you're parked in orbit around a planet for a few days while hullmods optimizing trade get welded onto your hull, before you go and sell stuff.Ah, okay. I was simply curious if you could do stuff with MutableCharacterStatsAPI inside of hullmod .java files, not suggesting the functionality be given official support.
As far as fleetwide bonuses, probably not - not because of anything I inherently don't like about the idea, but because combat has to actually become finished at some point :)
Oh, good. I'm glad I was wrong. :DAlso, it occurred to me that I should attempt to stay on-topic, so here:That's still there, actually. That change is referring to the whole lot of performance data it dumps into the log file every time you exit the game.
I'm going to miss the "performance metrics" which I assume are FPS and CPU measurements. Sure, I always use devmode nowadays, but even in normal mode I always liked being able to look at my frames per second to see how well my computer was handling everything.
How's development going?
I dying from waiting please release that Awesome Patch :-) or atleast tell us the release time :-)That's generally a bad idea.
I dying from waiting please release that Awesome Patch :-) or atleast tell us the release time :-)That's generally a bad idea.
The patch isn't ready to be released, so he shouldn't release it. We'd just get disappointed.
And he should not give a release time, ever. He doesn't know when it's done. If it gets finished before the release date, he'll either have to keep it, which he doesn't like, or have to release it before time. If he releases it before time, why would he even give a date for it to be released? And if it isn't ready when he said he would release it, he'd either have to release something unfinished and buggy, or disappoint us by delaying it.
So, unless it gets finished on the exact day he says it will, people will get disappointed. Which is why he hasn't given a release day for any patch so far, and hopefully never will.
And if you just want a ballpark figure, here's one. Before August. August 2013, that is.
[/quote
^^
This needs go be plastered on the screen every time you enter this forum.
I dying from waiting please release that Awesome Patch :-) or atleast tell us the release time :-)That's generally a bad idea.
The patch isn't ready to be released, so he shouldn't release it. We'd just get disappointed.
And he should not give a release time, ever. He doesn't know when it's done. If it gets finished before the release date, he'll either have to keep it, which he doesn't like, or have to release it before time. If he releases it before time, why would he even give a date for it to be released? And if it isn't ready when he said he would release it, he'd either have to release something unfinished and buggy, or disappoint us by delaying it.
So, unless it gets finished on the exact day he says it will, people will get disappointed. Which is why he hasn't given a release day for any patch so far, and hopefully never will.
And if you just want a ballpark figure, here's one. Before August. August 2013, that is.
[/quote
^^
This needs go be plastered on the screen every time you enter this forum.
It could need something like it, maybe a sticky thread explaining why there aren't any ETAs or dates in the patches.
Back on topic: The patch looks better and better each time it's updated. Keep up the great work :)
He should release it election day, or the day after. The happy people will be even happier, the sad people will have that mitigated a little bit. The people who don't care, will then be moderately happy
id prefer status updates to a solid release date....something along the lines:But with bold step you could get: BUGS. So you are back on:
just started
adjusted some values
fixed some bugs
making final adjustments
etc.
What happens if the enemy fleet has more ships than you and orders an assault on a point? Will the friendly AI send all the ships it has to capture that point and have nothing capture other points?
e.g. the enemy sends 3 lashers to capture a single point. You have only 3 lashers deployed, will the friendly AI send all those to one point if you have other points set to capture?
So... You reduced the base command points to 3.... What frigates go within that small ammount
So... You reduced the base command points to 3.... What frigates go within that small ammount
Commands Points =/= Fleet Points. Command points are what you use to give orders to your fleet, Fleet Points determine what you're able to deploy at a given time.
wished there was more game update with small content that happen more frequently, than big patch with much content ( that maybe be bugged... dont know ) once in 2 months =/
Will attempt to help nearby ships in trouble
Does this include the player? Cause that would be really awesome!
Oh, and don't get into too much detail with your feature tests, you have a small army of people who are eager to give you feedback at your service ;)
On that topic: please give the Mjolnir just a teensy boost? Even like 5% in damage would be fantastic.
Oh, and don't get into too much detail with your feature tests, you have a small army of people who are eager to give you feedback at your service ;)
On that topic: please give the Mjolnir just a teensy boost? Even like 5% in damage would be fantastic.
Alex, are we still going to be able to change stats quickly from a excel file in the final build? Really enjoy your game but I personally like to tweak the stats to suit my slower paced playing style.
An example: a destroyer will guard a nearby capital ship, instead of running off by itself - assuming they're both assigned to fight in the same general area, that is, and are actually *in* that area.does that work for hyperion as well? because ive found out that thing is most useful when released from its leash wreaking havoc in the enemy's rear and generally pulling enemy ships away from the main battle
On a more on-topic note, I've just spent the last couple of days revamping the command and combat tutorials. Very glad to finally have those in place where I'm actually happy with them.
And will TB ever try to do another update on his SF video? Like he did with the campaign patch?
Yay, finally! A better combat and command UI tutorial. :)
And will TB ever try to do another update on his SF video? Like he did with the campaign patch?
That's good, but it does mean the mission editor you were considering didn't make it, right? :-\
On an unrelated note, did you consider/remember/find time to remove the brown squares (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=4188.0) around enemies (and destroyed stuff) in F11 mode? I was thinking about trying my hand at a cinematic SF video, but those squares really bug me...
Still looking at it.
Thanks for the reminder - done.
Alex, this is probably way OFF topic, but when could we expect the full game released?
I'm a little worried we're looking toward 2014 at this rate.
On a more serious note should we keep an eye out for things that might need a tutorial (or the reverse you ask us how well a tutorial explains something - maybe something for a new thread)
With the amount of content ur adding, maybe instead of 0.54a should go into the 0.60
- Forlorn Hope: added 3 more bomber wings and an Onslaught to the enemy forces
Are you going to give it impossible difficulty then change it to hard when someone beats it again? ;D
Are you going to give it impossible difficulty then change it to hard when someone beats it again? ;D
I firmly believe that if the player is handed a Paragon, nothing is impossible :)
Are you going to give it impossible difficulty then change it to hard when someone beats it again? ;D
I firmly believe that if the player is handed a Paragon, nothing is impossible :)
With the amount of content ur adding, maybe instead of 0.54a should go into the 0.60
Hmm, yeah, perhaps. If not, then it'll definitely happen when there's more than one star system.
I just realized that this is still alpha and it seems to have more content than triple a titles have on release. oh and i would be fine with a 2014 release.
Err... what about... uhh... getting mercilessly slaughtered without a proper fight? :P
And just so I'm on-topic: How much does the whole skill system change the campaign dynamic as it is? Like do the AI fleet admirals have skill levels and a bit more randomised fleets to reflect that or is it just a player-focused phenomenon for the meantime?
Err... what about... uhh... getting mercilessly slaughtered without a proper fight? :P
I'm sure you could manage if you really put your mind to it :)
When will we get a better auto-resolve?
Though it may not be related to this patch in particular, but how are ships/weapons/fighter availability gonna be like in release? like 1 ship for sale every 3 systems? possible ships as rewards for missions?
Comparatively, are additional captain skills going to be added when real trade mechanics are introduced?
And would every system get their own supply fleet? or is it possible for a player run supply fleet to help out a system? meep :D
Your game is dying, updates are WAAAAY too slow. I know people who work part time on mods for other games that put out content faster than this. I am not trying to discourage you from working because the game is quite enjoyable. But it is still lacking in content and functionality. I do hope that your update is very large and provides more content then you have listed because the game has potential. A few months ago you had 30+ posts per day in some of your threads(mods for example) despite the split i still think that 2 posts a day is an indication of significantly less traffic and interest in the game. I think its more important to release your updates every few weeks then it is to make giant releases months and months apart. Generate continuous interest. I hope you do decide to continue working seeing as how i have purchased the game. Good luck, put in the work!!!
Your game is dying, updates are WAAAAY too slow. I know people who work part time on mods for other games that put out content faster than this. I am not trying to discourage you from working because the game is quite enjoyable. But it is still lacking in content and functionality. I do hope that your update is very large and provides more content then you have listed because the game has potential. A few months ago you had 30+ posts per day in some of your threads(mods for example) despite the split i still think that 2 posts a day is an indication of significantly less traffic and interest in the game. I think its more important to release your updates every few weeks then it is to make giant releases months and months apart. Generate continuous interest. I hope you do decide to continue working seeing as how i have purchased the game. Good luck, put in the work!!!
Not sure where you got those numbers, I just wanted to say that last month the forum had 2675 posts and just these 8 first days of November we have had 645 new posts. So no, its not like 2 a day. Its more like 90.
… and that’s what I get for talking about hotfixes. New version is up – there was a bug having to do with built-in weapons – using “strip” from the refit screen or loading a variant would permanently remove them. This is now fixed, please re-download the new version if you got it already (links below updated, new build is RC5).
In reality the game is OUT, I purchased it, therefore it is a product that you are saying is or will be soon(well, I cant put an exact time frame on this but soon is kinda flexible here)worth the money spent. Therefore i have every right to expect the game to be playable and enjoyable to the degree advertised on the site. If not immediately then certainly soon(again, well, you get the idea). I may have been overly harsh in saying straight out that the game is dying, however my pessimistic view of things points to a significant slow down over the last month+.
Wa...what? 50% missile damage? I know it's a massive investment, but a reaper torpedo...or a Harpoon, for god's sake, would absolutely CRUSH everything! ;D What tree is it part of (I can't think of that work right now, the Industry, Technology, Combat, etc.)? I'm gonna dump every skill I have in there, outfit my Enforcer with 4 Harpoon Racks, Expanded Missile Racks, and terrify the enemy with 24-odd Harpoons. 8)
And finally, something to benefit the 1 OP missile launchers. A Single Harpoon with the Level 5 will get another, right?
And finally, something to benefit the 1 OP missile launchers. A Single Harpoon with the Level 5 will get another, right?
Question about the +1 Missile ammo: Is the +1 factored in before or after the expanded missile racks hullmod? I know you talked about multiplier bonuses, but I can't remember if you talked about addition/subtraction in combination with multipliers.
Also I want to see how you play the game yourself.
Question about the +1 Missile ammo: Is the +1 factored in before or after the expanded missile racks hullmod? I know you talked about multiplier bonuses, but I can't remember if you talked about addition/subtraction in combination with multipliers.
After. So, a single-shot Reaper gets 1 + 75% from the hullmod (still 1) + 1 more from the perk = 2 missiles. Considering an Enforcer can pack *eight* of those (and get them out 2x faster, thanks to the level 5 perk), that's still scary good.
Alex, not sure if you have the time or stuff to do it, but i would love it if you posted videos on your channel, like a developer comments on your game, or some spoilors on the new stuff, like what was done before. Also I want to see how you play the game yourself.
Do fighters benefit from the +1 missile? Thunders with 2 harpoons?! :o
Sounds interesting! I just hope that you avoid power spirals, code geass style.
Personally, I think the idea of player skills is great, but I hope that they don't turn the player into some sort of roflstomper from hell on a mission to destroy the Borg with a pencil.
The non-scaling "+1 missile per launcher" seems off to me. Not just because it's a disproportionate bonus for one-shot to three-shot launchers, but because it'll be essentially meaningless to high-ammo-count launchers. I imagine you've considered this, but I'm still curious as to the reasoning behind this decision.
... Though chef never tastes his own food ...
Alex, this is probably way OFF topic, but when could we expect the full game released?Aw, come on, you know me better than to expect a date or a specific timeframe :) When it's done (tm).
I'm a little worried we're looking toward 2014 at this rate.
When is Starfarer coming out?So it will be 4 years and 11 month!
When it is ready. We are not Blizzard though, so this doesn’t mean 5+ years.
Is it bad that I'm more excited for the passive accuracy buff than the ammo? I've been doing a lot of frigate fighting recently... eat Harpoon, hound!
I'll think about it :) It does take a little time away from "actual work", though, as I tend to be a bit OCD about things like that.Might be a good idea though. More frequent/engaging updates would help ease the tension from an evermore impatient community. (Though frankly, it doesn't bother me much, considering I just create content myself when I get impatient.)
Yeah, it's not exactly neat and tidy, but the idea is that there's something in that perk for both low and high ammo missiles. Standard Harpoon racks (let alone single-shot missile racks) hardly benefit from the increased rate of fire, but the +1 ammo is very cool for them. On the flip side, the rate of fire matters a great deal for Pilums, Annihilators, etc.
Is there a possibility for a fourth faction or more? :)
New graphics for Gauss Cannon, Railgun, and Storm Needler
Can add custom ship system AI (warning: it requires a decent understanding of Java)
See fastmissileracks.system for commented-out example:
#"aiType":"CUSTOM",
#"aiScript":"data.shipsystems.scripts.ai.FastMissileRacksAI",
Added ShipSystemAPI, FluxTrackerAPI,AssignmentTargetAPI, CombatAssignmentType, made enhancements to ShipAPI, WeaponAPI, ShieldAPI
Pics or it didnt happen!
I am incredibly excited for this. I have about a half dozen modification of the existing ship systems to try and tweak the AI for... We'll see whether my understanding of Java is decent or not (I suspect not :P).
What exactly is the rationale for bonus XP for losing ships in combat? Is it there to minimize the loss of XP you could have gotten if the ships were alive? If you can get more XP than normal by losing ships or battles it may lead to some odd scenarios; for example, a player might purchase a bunch of cheap, weak ships for the sole purpose of losing them in combat.
Nice screenshot! Good to know SF is getting some love on the graphics front too.
Incidentally, did you do all the spriting for Starfarer, Alex? Or do you have someone to help you with the visual aspect of the game?
So Alex in this update can we get the largest fuel tanker added at last?Why? You don't need fuel, so you don't even need the tanker that the game already has.
So Alex in this update can we get the largest fuel tanker added at last?Why? You don't need fuel, so you don't even need the tanker that the game already has.
A phased ship overloaded or venting will come out of phase regardless of whether it's on top of another object or not
- Revamped fleet command tutorial
- Revamped combat tutorial, split into "basic" and "advanced" portions
- Improved Sabot missile tracking - much less likely to get total misses now
- New graphics for Gauss Cannon, Railgun, and Storm Needler
QuoteA phased ship overloaded or venting will come out of phase regardless of whether it's on top of another object or not
So, if I manage to get my Doom over a frigate or destroyer and vent, the frigate is destroyed and I take hull damage? Sounds like a feasible tactic.
And on the other hand, if I hover my Shade above the enemy onslaught and hit V I'm dead?
...
- Added InputEventAPI
- Added ShipSystemAPI, FluxTrackerAPI,AssignmentTargetAPI, CombatAssignmentType, made enhancements to ShipAPI, WeaponAPI, ShieldAPI
The original AI is still in the core code - extracting it to scripts would be time-consuming (never mind adding to the game's loading time), even though, as far as I can tell, it's not doing anything (or much) the API wouldn't let it do.
So Alex in this update can we get the largest fuel tanker added at last?Why? You don't need fuel, so you don't even need the tanker that the game already has.
Yeah, but fuel will be needed later, so why not add it now and save the trouble.
So Alex in this update can we get the largest fuel tanker added at last? Maybe even some of the other ships that have graphics but aren't implemented?
The Storm Needler changes are lost on me. I can't see the difference.
QuoteA phased ship overloaded or venting will come out of phase regardless of whether it's on top of another object or notAnd on the other hand, if I hover my Shade above the enemy onslaught and hit V I'm dead?
Now I'm thinking, is there any way to create a special ship class where it has the benefits of fightercraft/drones, but the collision of normal frigate and above ships,
Wow, I'm loving the API changes in this update - so many things just became possible. This might be my favorite update so far. :)
...
- Added InputEventAPI
[/list]
- Added ShipSystemAPI, FluxTrackerAPI,AssignmentTargetAPI, CombatAssignmentType, made enhancements to ShipAPI, WeaponAPI, ShieldAPI
Would you be willing to post these here so we could get an idea of what to expect, or are the details still in flux?
public interface InputEventAPI {
int getEventValue();
int getX();
int getY();
int getDX();
int getDY();
InputEventClass getEventClass();
void logEvent();
boolean isConsumed();
void consume();
boolean isRepeat();
InputEventType getEventType();
boolean isMouseEvent();
boolean isKeyboardEvent();
boolean isKeyUpEvent();
boolean isKeyDownEvent();
boolean isMouseUpEvent();
boolean isMouseDownEvent();
boolean isLMBDownEvent();
boolean isLMBEvent();
boolean isRMBEvent();
boolean isLMBUpEvent();
boolean isRMBDownEvent();
boolean isRMBUpEvent();
boolean isMouseMoveEvent();
boolean isMouseScrollEvent();
char getEventChar();
boolean isAltDown();
boolean isCtrlDown();
boolean isShiftDown();
boolean isUnmodified();
boolean isDoubleClick();
}
The original AI is still in the core code - extracting it to scripts would be time-consuming (never mind adding to the game's loading time), even though, as far as I can tell, it's not doing anything (or much) the API wouldn't let it do.
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask about. Would it be possible to make Starfarer able to load .class files directly? This would both greatly decrease loading time as well as allow us to use generics and other things not supported by Janino. And they would still go through the custom classloader, correct?
Now we need phase missiles / torpedoes / bombs. ;D ;D ;DWow earlier today I was thinking about this too, when playing the Ironclads mod I was wondering, "what if there was a phase cruise missile in this mod?" XD, supported 200%.
Looks great, Alex! Glad to see so much progress on the big stuff :)
I really hope this game isn't our Christmas present from you Alex, i don't think i can wait that long.
Ahhh....after a day of picking up logs, choppping wood, and generally cleaning up after Sandy, I come to this. Thanks, Alex! :)
You seem to have given us a time frame.I really hope this game isn't our Christmas present from you Alex, i don't think i can wait that long.Well, I rather hope it won't be that long.
Campaign:
- Losing ships in combat gives bonus XP, if the fleet has more than 5 fleet points worth of ships
- Losing a battle gives double XP for that battle, if you fleet was worth more than 5 fleet points
Not sure if Canada joke or just CanadianHurricane Sandy cleanup. Pine tree fell over, cleaned it up that day. :)
:D
Winning battle without losses and serious damage is already reward of its own, no need to add any special bonuses atop of it. The best system is to give more rewards with more risk but avoid save scumming to get more with each battle. Maybe reward players for not saving too often?uh and why would you do this in a SP game? i mean there is no reason to do this....if you want to suffer consequences of one horrible decision by AI sure then just dont load save....others might not feel it that way ;)
SP games need to be balanced just as much as MP games do. Games should also give players rewards for sticking with the consequences of their actions rather than just redoing everything constantly until you get a favorable outcome.Winning battle without losses and serious damage is already reward of its own, no need to add any special bonuses atop of it. The best system is to give more rewards with more risk but avoid save scumming to get more with each battle. Maybe reward players for not saving too often?uh and why would you do this in a SP game? i mean there is no reason to do this....if you want to suffer consequences of one horrible decision by AI sure then just dont load save....others might not feel it that way ;)
Just a question for Alex but can he make it so that the AI doesn't send drones out to die when their main purpose is to increase it's range. Even on free roam they should try to stay within it's shield bubble.
Drastically reduced Apogee sensor drone roam range
SpoilerQuoteCampaign:
- Losing ships in combat gives bonus XP, if the fleet has more than 5 fleet points worth of ships
- Losing a battle gives double XP for that battle, if you fleet was worth more than 5 fleet points
In regards to this, you wouldn't happen to be considering other Bonus XP conditions, would you? Like say:
- XP bonus for defeating an opposing fleet while using only X% of your own forces' (or opposing fleet's) FP cost.
- XP bonus for getting through a FLEEING battle with all ships intact against a fleet with X times more FP worth.
- XP bonus for eliminating ALL opposing vessels of a FLEEING battle (Or perhaps a slightly better salvage chance for money/equipment?)
- XP bonus for taking no damage (other than shield damage) in a battle. Probably balanced against FP costs of the your fleet versus opposing fleet.
...And probably some other things I can't think of off-hand right now. Numbers are up in the air for those suggestions, of course. This to help reward players that go out of their way and display skill in combat.
Also, is there any possibility of making salvage/capture chances higher based on player performance in a fight? Like say in a fight, I manage to concentrate all my fire on the rear side of an enemy vessel. I've knocked out his engines several times during the fight and the rest of his ship is mostly intact save for the rear quadrant. I finally kill him while his engines are out and the rest of his ship is untouched. Wouldn't that make a capture attempt more likely to happen in the post battle? I'm not asking for a HUGH boost to chance, but just SOME sort of boost to reflect the skill and efforts of users in combat. Like if a ship only has a 1/100 chance of normally being capturable post-battle, doing certain things could boost it to like 1/50 chance.
Similar for undamaged weapons on enemy vessel for salvaging post-battle. (Maybe even for credits as well. I imagine there'd be more undamaged CPU cores to pull credits from if a player is very picky about targetting and leave a vessel mostly intact before disabling it.) You'd still have to farm battles, but drops and captures are SLIGHTLY skewed towards the players' benefit if they put the effort into it.[close]
Hoping for a few more logistics ships to go wit hthe expanded universe in the patch after this.
Hoping for a few more logistics ships to go wit hthe expanded universe in the patch after this.
What makes you think the patch after this will expand the universe?
Updated with some modding-focused changes. Likely to be the last update prior to the release.(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001997215/721187406_Hell_Yes_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg)
in fact no, SP games require completely different set of balancing than MP games...SP games need to be balanced just as much as MP games do. Games should also give players rewards for sticking with the consequences of their actions rather than just redoing everything constantly until you get a favorable outcome.Winning battle without losses and serious damage is already reward of its own, no need to add any special bonuses atop of it. The best system is to give more rewards with more risk but avoid save scumming to get more with each battle. Maybe reward players for not saving too often?uh and why would you do this in a SP game? i mean there is no reason to do this....if you want to suffer consequences of one horrible decision by AI sure then just dont load save....others might not feel it that way ;)
Total conversions can now...
QuoteTotal conversions can now...
Hurrray!
I'm drooling already ;D
I don't suppose "spawn missiles and other projectiles" means there's going to be a general method to hook into the detonation of projectiles via code?
You should totally add hats... every game needs hats...
What are you talking about...?
Of course a spaceship can wear hats...
Silly people...
You should totally add hats... every game needs hats...
What are you talking about...?
Of course a spaceship can wear hats...
Silly people...
So who wants to guess what will be in the update past this? My guess is the implimentation of additional systems and travel.
I believe Alex would prefer it if Valve DIDN'T have to break his legs.You should totally add hats... every game needs hats...
What are you talking about...?
Of course a spaceship can wear hats...
Silly people...
At first I thought you were joking, but now I realize what a brilliant Idea that is! Scrap all that other stuff in the update Alex, we want hats now!
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/977/condorhat.jpg)
Alex should totally do that as an April Fools Day Update.
So who wants to guess what will be in the update past this? My guess is the implimentation of additional systems and travel.
Can you add a Display that shows how much supplies are needed when you want to repair in a station. It's very hard to guess how much you need if you don't have enough and it's kind of annoying to go to the station and buy small amounts of supplies until you hit the magic spot.
......I know Alex is a one-man army......
NP, just one of those crazy ideas. Wanted to make a ship that could deploy space stations that didn't have to follow Drone rules and some kewl FX stuff that's probably only doable via code and particle / projectile creation.
Hey Alex can we get a sneak peek at the new ambient combat music?
Can you add a Display that shows how much supplies are needed when you want to repair in a station. It's very hard to guess how much you need if you don't have enough and it's kind of annoying to go to the station and buy small amounts of supplies until you hit the magic spot.
I made a suggestion about that some time ago (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3607.msg55330#msg55330) and it was approved. So yeah, a solution will probably be implemented at some point. "when [Alex is] working on that area of the code for some other reason"
One of the greatest updates! Now we have access to AI ;D
SpoilerAlex, what regarding making filter for weapons and weapon mounts?
For example adding to weapon.wpn something like "wpnFilters":"hir,idf"; which allow to use this weapon at any mount of same size and mount type that have filters like this:
{"angle": 0.0, "arc": 240.3, "id":"BGIGUN_TUR_M_01", "locations":[76.0,-0.0], "mount":"TURRET", "size":"LARGE", "type":"BALLISTIC", "wpnFilters":"hir"} or
{"angle": 0.0, "arc": 240.3, "id":"BGIGUN_TUR_M_01", "locations":[76.0,-0.0], "mount":"TURRET", "size":"LARGE", "type":"BALLISTIC", "wpnFilters":"idf"}
And vice verse, if mount have "wpnFilters":"hir,idf"; it can mount any weapon of same size and mount type that have "wpnFilters":"hir" or "wpnFilters":"idf"[close]
I also didn't understood from updates, will some serious size projectiles have more health then some small bullets and missiles?
Re: hats - Everything is funnier with hats. It's like a universal constant.It still will take time before hats will be on same level of universal constants as 42 :P
Just ship system AI for now, mind you :)Oh, it's already enough to cause total destruction with Systems I already implemented :)
When I have time to improve the game's modability, I'd rather spend it on exposing existing core features to mods.Ready and waiting :)
I believe Alex would prefer it if Valve DIDN'T have to break his legs.You should totally add hats... every game needs hats...
What are you talking about...?
Of course a spaceship can wear hats...
Silly people...
At first I thought you were joking, but now I realize what a brilliant Idea that is! Scrap all that other stuff in the update Alex, we want hats now!
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/977/condorhat.jpg)
I believe Alex would prefer it if Valve DIDN'T have to break his legs.You should totally add hats... every game needs hats...
What are you talking about...?
Of course a spaceship can wear hats...
Silly people...
At first I thought you were joking, but now I realize what a brilliant Idea that is! Scrap all that other stuff in the update Alex, we want hats now!
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/977/condorhat.jpg)
On the contrary! Valve and Alex are already working on an Onslaught hat for Team Fortress 2.
It's, uh, it's a little unwieldy. Takes up about half the map.
Latest update on that: you should be able to detect when stuff explodes. No callback for it, but you can query the state of the engine every frame and figure it out based on that (I.E., is the projectile still in play? If so, does its didDamage() method return true? If so, what did it do damage to?)That's cool; can we just check didDamage() or is that going to return true for any projectile ID whose explosion lasts for more than one frame? What about beams?
Pahahahahahahaha! I think that ship needs a monocle, I mean... If I was blown into space by a ship with a top hat and monocle I would be nothing but charmed... and dead... maybe a little dead...
Testing a release candidate... let's see how this goes.
ClassyPahahahahahahaha! I think that ship needs a monocle, I mean... If I was blown into space by a ship with a top hat and monocle I would be nothing but charmed... and dead... maybe a little dead...
Mh..this is now the official logo of the Starfarer short story contes (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=4704.0)t!Spoiler(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/456/nobleship.jpg)[close]
SpoilerQuoteLatest update on that: you should be able to detect when stuff explodes. No callback for it, but you can query the state of the engine every frame and figure it out based on that (I.E., is the projectile still in play? If so, does its didDamage() method return true? If so, what did it do damage to?)That's cool; can we just check didDamage() or is that going to return true for any projectile ID whose explosion lasts for more than one frame? What about beams?
Just wondering how we're going to populate our event table and compare it with the game's internal one; that sounds like it'd get pretty expensive if we have to do a for-each check for every single projectile vs. every table entry. If an explosion lasts multiple frames, we'll have to exclude it from the table on future frames and do a fair amount of table maintenance, too.
Sorry if any of that sounds stupid in Java terms, just trying to work out what we'll be looking at here in terms of finding out which projectiles haven't had a unique event yet. Might be cheaper to simply have a function that gets called for any projectile if it has a name value other than null when it detonates and let the end-user define that code in the .proj, like how it's handled for .systems.[close]
Hmm. A onHit() script per-projectile sounds like a good idea, but it won't make it into this release. For now, you'd have to, each frame, see which projectiles went from didDamage() = false to didDamage() = true, and work from that. That's not as computationally expensive as it sounds.Yeah, that was what I was hoping for, that or a callback. Anyhow, really looking forward to playing with this, it'll make a lot of interesting things possible :)
Oh man oh man oh man ...Dude it's just game don't get over excited :P
An at beginning when you chose your "history", why you didn't put what skills that will unlock?
Hot tip: picking the "something else" options will let you spend *all* the points as you see fit, but start you off in a shuttle or a hound.Yeah, got that after 3x time going Did something Else :P
I got Q:
Mechanical Engineering and Computer System skills and Technology aptitude have +% on ordinance points. Does that bonuses stack up?
Muahahaha this is awesome. Keep up the great work Alex!
That's why i did write Technology aptitude :D. Awesome, tnx Alex.I got Q:Yep. The "Technology" aptitude itself also has a % bonus to OP, btw.
Mechanical Engineering and Computer System skills and Technology aptitude have +% on ordinance points. Does that bonuses stack up?
Time to get to work!Let's see what these two mad scientists (Verrrius + LazyWizard) can do! I look forward to your creations. :D
Mod seems to load all right out of the box, yay. Now I've just got to figure out how to customize what ships people can start with and other things, hehe :)
I also guess I need to read through the notes about what CARRIER/CIVILIAN do in the CSV (I presume those are AI hints), same with any weapon changes.
Mod seems to load all right out of the box, yay. Now I've just got to figure out how to customize what ships people can start with and other things, hehe :)
I also guess I need to read through the notes about what CARRIER/CIVILIAN do in the CSV (I presume those are AI hints), same with any weapon changes.
I believe the changes are that ships no longer "assume" to be civilian or carrier type ships, so they're now user-defined properties of the ships. The reason for this, if I remember rightly, is that some mod ships behaved like civilian or carrier ships even though they were just poorly armed or happened to have a flight deck but were still combat-worthy respectively.
So Alex can we get the Ambient Combat Track? I want to add it to my MP3.
Ah, Alex. Time to change the front page for that Character Skills portion in "Upcoming Features"
:)
Hmm. Tested out "Projectile graphics now rendered at correct aspect ratio based on the width of the trail, regardless of its length".
The sprites are now working properly (big yay!) but I can't reduce the coreColor alpha without both making the sprite alpha change (eek) and the weapon's explosion color change.
So I still can't have, say, a green custom weapon explosion sprite with a bright purple explosion. To get correct sprites, all my ballistic projectiles need a coreColor of 255s.
Am I just doing it wrong? I just want to see the sprite, no trail, and a yellow-orange explosion when it hits stuff.
And man, am I going to have fun with the custom battle stuff. Can we define "neutral" team stuff or a third team, so that we can have objects that shoot at everybody?
Sigh now the anticipation begins for the next patch.
So Alex can we get the Ambient Combat Track? I want to add it to my MP3.
These'll be available from Stian (the composer) as part of the soundtrack, once the game is officially out. So, the answer is yes, but not yet :)
As we don't have access to all the Hull Mods from the start it would be nice to add them to the codex. Even as a seasoned player I had to think about what some of them do and new players won't stand a chance. It's not nice to skill all the way to get some hullmod, only to find out it's not what you were looking for.
The last thing is more of a question. On the lvl10 Bonus in the first skill in Tech you get 50% added fire bonus. Does that only apply to projectile weapons? How are Weapons with burst Mechanics or replenishing Ammo affected?
Hmmm my ont question is why are there only 4 aptituds and 5 rows? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
I love the new combat tutorials! :D Althought the screen stops moving around when your mouse enters the text box, I find that annoying.
I'm really happy with the skills that only benefit your own ship (most or all of the combat tree). A lot more interesting when you have to make the choice between making your ship godlike and making all of your ships good. I wasn't expecting this at all.
Huh, can we not system.getEntityByName("Fleet") for the player's fleet anymore? It keeps giving me null errors.
- The graphic representation of the skill menu is sub-par. And I'm not talking about aesthetics (the symbols are wonderful, good looking and comprehensible) but about the arrangement. The symbols have too little space between them, they blend into each other and make it hard to discern them. You have a lot of space there that you could use. Why not align the aptitude indicator with the associated skills?
- There is too much information (and choices) at the beginning of a new campaign. First you get a low-information, high consequence choice with your characters history. After that you get the reverse, a damn lot of information
(you basically have to read 19 skills description) and a half-as important choice. Makes no sense to me.
How about a suggestion system like in fallout 3? You can decide on your history and the game selects a meaningful combination of skills based on that. You can just go with that for an easy introduction. Or you can view in detail what apts/skills are selected and change all of them.
Alternatively limit the choice of skills at level 1, maybe just three per aptitude.
- Reaching a new level is much to subtle. I often don't notice. Level progression should be a reason to rejoice, so give me fanfares and light shows!
- Please add keyboard support for the tutorial text messages, its annoying to have to click them. Also, they are somewhat oddly placed in the upper left corner. I think good tutorial design is important because it's likely the first thing a new player will encounter and can thus decide if he will proceed with the game.
I just noticed that the fleet command tutorial breaks and won't let you progress if one of your wasp wings are dead by the time you are ordered to select them both.
It would be useful if we could see how much dmg skills add on weapons of our ship. Maybe in refit screen when hover with cursor over weapon and in little windows that appears with that weapon stats should be displayed bonus dmg and other stuff that skills add.
And, maybe, other bonuses to ship vent rate etc.
SpoilerUh, am I the only one getting this problem? I can't seem to download 0.54a, been getting this error
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Access Denied</Message>
<RequestId>DED58357A259CD22</RequestId>
<HostId>
VK1jSGZe5UXgrO629Z0UiYPnXsV2S+IcnOPwSNMhbmXCxLBcf31wjeQ6DAvCk6VC
</HostId>
</Error>[close]
SpoilerIs there any particular reason Gunnery Implants is a Technology skill and not a Combat one? Given it only effects your ship it would seem to make more sense for the latter.
Similarly, Field Repairs seems more like a Leadership skill, even if it fits in thematically with Technology. Field Repairs is useful for maintaining your fleet, which seems to be the point of Leadership, rather than making your ships stronger, which seems to be the point of Technology. If it is an Industry skill temporarily placed under Technology one could still argue that it makes more sense for Leadership, as I imagine Industry will focus on making money rather than preventing losses, though if ship-building becomes a part of the game and is governed by Industry it would make sense that the same skill for building ships is also used for repairing them.
There also a couple of minor inconsistencies like the Missile Specialization giving hullmods and Ordnance Expertise's second perk affecting the entire fleet, both of which seem like Technology effects despite being part of Combat skills.
All that however are just very minor quibbles with what is otherwise an excellent update. Keep up the good work![close]
One thing I paid attention to in the skill description boxes: the expression of per level benefits and current benefits was at first unintuitive. What I mean by that is that you'd get something like "Bonus to X: Y%. (Z% per skill level.) Now, it became clear enough after reading through the text box carefully, but I did first interpret the current bonus for the per level bonus. Not that it lasted long, but I do think that dividing the per level bonus and the current bonus to different lines of text would make the whole thing clearer. Or at least place the per level bonus first and the current bonus in brackets, at least; a person reading about what the skill does will find the per level value more important, so that should come first, I think.
Edit: Also, is it just my imagination or has crew experience gain been boosted by a considerable margin? I got my flagship to an elite status in no time flat, something that I think used to take pretty long.
It would be useful if we could see how much dmg skills add on weapons of our ship. Maybe in refit screen when hover with cursor over weapon and in little windows that appears with that weapon stats should be displayed bonus dmg and other stuff that skills add.
And, maybe, other bonuses to ship vent rate etc.
Hmm, yeah. Somewhat unintended, actually - was tweaking player XP gain, but it's linked to the crew gain at the moment. Well, let's see how that plays out :)
Been in several situations where I was in a slower moving ship and couldn't turn fast enough to hit the annoying fast ship attacking me. However the other ship didn't have enough fire power to even raise my flux lvls while shielded. It's an annoying stalemate that could only be ended by taking advantage of that AI exploit. Kinda wish the enemy AI would run away if they can't ever hope to overload your shields. Would use auto resolve to end that kind of stalemate but I lost a battle that way once.
think there is a bug when u get more then 1 level after a battle you only seem to get the skill points from 1 of the levels and in the chat thing it only tells you about 1 of them.
have 8 ap and 24 sp if this is right then i was mistaken
Did it really take you that long to figure that out? ::) "Leadership"Yes lvl10 man... But i expected Leadership to give bonus to FP not to be main source of it... OOOO man -.- Fart!
How you gain Fleet Points? I'm level 10 and i have only 25FP. Oh no... No no no no i need Leadership stuff? No passive increase by player level?If you don't put points into Leadership though, you will be a one-man killing machine.
Absolutely agree, but coming up with a better layout is tricky. I mean, we've gone back and forth a bit with some of the same ideas (align aptitudes and related skills) but... well, didn't come up with anything better. But hadn't given up, either :)
I hear what you're saying. Having to read 19 skills once you've gained your first skill-point in-game isn't that much better, though.
Hmm. Where would you put them? Upper left seems like the first place someone would look, assuming their native language reads top to bottom and left to right. It's also conveniently free of any widgets, and isn't smack dab in the middle of the screen.
I did think about adding shortcuts, but that seems to be the kind of thing someone doing a tutorial for the first time might not find all that useful. You probably just wanted to breeze through it to figure it out, though... correct me if I'm wrong, I'm definitely open to input. Just giving my current opinion here.
Being able to add OP to the main fleet ships has made fighters/bombers far less viable. Great game though, digging all the new content!
I second this.Being able to add OP to the main fleet ships has made fighters/bombers far less viable. Great game though, digging all the new content!
I'm with you on this - a few skills that make fighters more fearsome (or less OP/fighter) would be a nice addition.
Any benefit to taking a shuttle? Or is that a masochism only thing? :)
On a side note, is there gonna be a sort of fixer'up patch in a week or so?
So my first impression is that it feels hollow. The character progression is cool, but it's not really compelling on it's own. I think that's just b/c we have a piece of the campaign instead of the coherent whole.
I'd rather fighters/bombers NOT go the cheap toss-away route. Ideally, there'd be options for players to create ship-only or carriers and strike craft-only fleets and have them roughly equivalent.
The way I see it, character progression allows you to shape a tool (your character) that interacts with the game world. And since right now that interaction boils down to killing a bunch of enemy ships...Right. And like I said. The mechanic itself is great, it just feels like there's more. Which there is, it's just not in yet. So now I'm not sure why I even brought it up, haha.
... don't hear the drumroll/see the readout at the bottom ...
Pretty much just masochism :) It's also about the only choice if you pick "something else" x2.
There is fireworks?!? Just leveled up a few times (whilst looking for them) and didn't see them, maybe because i play in the overworld completely zoomed out it may not show. Right sorry, misread that. That could work to.... don't hear the drumroll/see the readout at the bottom ...
How about fireworks firing from your fleet when you level up?
Needle_Fingers, you may have the name I never thought I'd ever see.There is fireworks?!? Just leveled up a few times (whilst looking for them) and didn't see them, maybe because i play in the overworld completely zoomed out it may not show. Right sorry, misread that. That could work to.... don't hear the drumroll/see the readout at the bottom ...
How about fireworks firing from your fleet when you level up?
And since right now that interaction boils down to killing a bunch of enemy ships...
Anyway, very fair point.
In time, dear sir. In time.
Alex, minor suggestion: In the character leveling up screen, how about allowing right-clicking to revert a point for skills? I'm not sure about other people, but when using that screen I pretty much instinctively right-click the skill boxes in an attempt to revert point assignments every time I want to revert. :P
I really like the atmospheric battle soundtrack, but isn't it a bit quiet? I only notice it if I tune the overall volume really high or the effect volume really low.
So if one specs into tech with a side of combat and solos Hegemony's massive defense fleet with only a paragon (not that a paragon is an ONLY), is it overpowered (only took sliver of damage to hull) or just damn fun.Meeko is the name of that stray dog is Skyrim :'(, that dog has a really sad backstory.
Okay I did take my faithful Hound with me to capture the first of four pts, but he didn't last long...I'll miss you Captain Meeko.
P.S. Loving the new skills
Actually, Alex, will the AI have access to the same skill-set players do at some point? The enemy fleets seem static (i.e. vanilla/basic) compared tothe progession the player gets. I'm just wondering if the AI might get some of the skills in another version of the game depending on player level and/or location (once interstellar travel is implemented).
Perhaps in the next update a way to commission ships to be built? :D pretty please Alex, make this Starfaring Captain an even happier camper :)
Let's put it this way - I expect the process to be more transformative than additive.Just sort of as a temporary fix. :) Or you can reduce fleet speeds and planet sizes and cram more systems into that one. ;D
Perhaps in the next update a way to commission ships to be built? :D pretty please Alex, make this Starfaring Captain an even happier camper :)
Actually - this is probably not what you want to hear, but the update that makes significant inroads into the "real" campaign is likely to *not* have all the ships/weapons/etc available in it. It'll take more time to build out the world in such a way that all the content is available without feeling crammed in, the way things are now in the one system.
We'll have to see about the specifics, though.
Cripple core world supply lines to cause chaos and create easy prey for piracy or bolster the rule of law and try to reverse the sector’s descent into anarchy
Impact the fate of the sector with your decisions and leave a permanent mark in the world
Actually, Alex, will the AI have access to the same skill-set players do at some point? The enemy fleets seem static (i.e. vanilla/basic) compared tothe progession the player gets. I'm just wondering if the AI might get some of the skills in another version of the game depending on player level and/or location (once interstellar travel is implemented).
That's very likely. Having experienced (read: skilled, as in with various relevant skills) enemy captains seems like a good way to up the challenge - potentially dramatically - without resorting to having the enemies cheat or throw extremely large amounts of ships at you.
Oh, yay! I'm assuming EXP would scale with fleet captain/admiral "rank" (or level) for those that do have skills, right? Would they pull from the exact same skillset as the player? Or will they have access to unique skills, limited skills, or reduced bonus skills? I ask because I know of some games that give the AI only limited access to the same skillset as the player since the AI can react with no lag, making some skill combos kinda "broken" in AI hands.
Oh, and I just remembered what my forgotten question was: What will the EXP progression be like? Currently, I'm in the mid-40's. Going from 45 to 46 requires about 750k exp. The best EXP fight are Heg Def Fleets @ 40k-50k on average. Are you intending to make extreme high levels impractical or is this just a current side-effect of not having much of game implemented yet, so we're lacking sources of EXP from higher ranking sources (like the aforementioned "experienced enemy captains")? And in regards to EXP, is there a level cap? Or will this be like SPAZ where the level cap is only when the player decide to stop grinding? If it's tied to AP, I'm guessing the limit would be around the mid 70's from a practical viewpoint. (With only 4 aptitudes at 10 levels each, 40 AP is all you need to max them all, so level 80 would've been the absolute max for that. Lower since you have to account for starting points given to you.)
Lastly, will we be able to re-spec a character we've built up later? I sometimes want to try out new char builds, but don't necessarily like having to replay an entire game just to test out a char build. In-game, I can kinda see this as a special "memory adjustment service". Pay a price to have your char respec'ed, but you either have to forgo EXP for a little while while your "new memories" settle in or have a chance losing a level or two and the poins that go with them. (SPAZ had a in-game re-spec penalty of having to sacrifice new exp up to a set threshold before it starts counting towards your char progression again.)
What happened to the Flux Conduits Hull Mod. It doesn't seem to give me any more Venting. Maybe it doesn't stack with passive bonuses? Or maybe it's a bug?
Also, I'm not really sure, but sometimes Hullmods seem to be disappearing from my loadouts. I am not sure it is really happening or if I just became really clumsy and manage to click on the minus symbol to often...
It only works for Active Venting, not Passive Venting.
If you use Front Shield Emitter or Omni Shield Emitter hullmods, they remove themselves anytime you remove another hullmod due to an issue with dependencies. If you use either of them, that would explain multiple hullmods being removed randomly.
EDIT: The problem with the Front Shield Emitter (and Omni Shield) hullmod is that you can't have a Front Shield Emitter on a ship with front shields. So anytime you remove a hullmod, the game checks the dependencies, sees that you're violating the rules by having a Front Shield Emitter on a ship with front shields, and removes it- even though the Front Shield Emitter is what gave it front shields. Alex knows about it, so don't worry.
If that's not the problem you're seeing, though, be sure to mention it. =)
I'm just waiting for an MMO that combines space and land battles perfectly and it's just not happening. The space travel of EVE with the space battles of something of a mix between FTL, Starfarer and X, planetary conflict and control like Planetary Annihilation and Sins of A Solar Empire, ground combat kind of like the Force Unleashed, Halo and Starforge, destruction physics for entire planets and any structure built on them like Red Faction: Guerilla, city and colony building like SimCity and the ability to land on planets directly and dynamically without loading anything... beautiful... All of those developers should team up and make perfection...
I really like the atmospheric battle soundtrack, but isn't it a bit quiet? I only notice it if I tune the overall volume really high or the effect volume really low.
You're not supposed to hear it over the FX - it's only there to provide an audio background for otherwise-quiet periods.
Any chance of that changing? I'd really like to see (hear) a lot more from the audio department in this game.
I'm pretty sure it's one of the few you get from the get go.
Level up faster? are you mental? i hit lvl 50 in one day, its good as it is, it should be slowed down if nothing else. leveling up to fast just removes the joy of achieving a new level which completely removes the purpose of the leveling system.Look his post:
Great Patch ! im Level 40 and have only 3 Ships Paragon, Hyperion and i dont remember the name. And i own EVERY Pirate Fleet or Tachyon fleet, only Hegemony Main deff is a Problem.I think he is trying to say that leveling should be a bit longer.
But i think Level up need a bit to long. But anyways nice Patch. And i saw the Sneak Peak on the SkillTree:-)
I'm just waiting for an MMO that combines space and land battles perfectly and it's just not happening. The space travel of EVE with the space battles of something of a mix between FTL, Starfarer and X, planetary conflict and control like Planetary Annihilation and Sins of A Solar Empire, ground combat kind of like the Force Unleashed, Halo and Starforge, destruction physics for entire planets and any structure built on them like Red Faction: Guerilla, city and colony building like SimCity and the ability to land on planets directly and dynamically without loading anything... beautiful... All of those developers should team up and make perfection...
So, uh, Dust 514?
It pretty much describes what you want, within the boundaries of today's technology
[...] the downsides of an open paid beta [...]
I think that leveling is way to fast ;D
I think that leveling is way to fast ;D
Every progression (well, we only have 2 as of now, level and fleet/ship size) in current version is way too ridiculously fast because right now the game have zero pacing. Every single object being crammed into single system with single method (combat) of item acquisition can do that.
I imagine that in more complete version of the campaign, battles will be smaller early on and less numerous, with ship captures being rarer with lot of non-combat activities for players to sink their time into for overall better pacing.
Hey Alex, a long-term Question if I may: Do you envision the modding tools in the final game to be sufficient for a modder to tell a story? Regardless of form: mission, campaign, quest. That's what I would really love to do in a mod.
Hey Alex, a long-term Question if I may: Do you envision the modding tools in the final game to be sufficient for a modder to tell a story? Regardless of form: mission, campaign, quest. That's what I would really love to do in a mod.
You know, I really can't say just yet. What's moddable is dependent on what the core game is going to require in terms of architecture - my general point of view is that Starfarer is a game rather than an engine. Which is a bit of a "duh".
That said, I'd very much like to allow that. And as much other stuff as I can :)
alex: regarding the exp have you thought about some ratio system when it comes to the size of opposing fleets? i mean you should get more exp if your 2 frigates with 6FP total beat a 12FP cruiser than if you roflstomp the same cruiser with a 20FP onslaught.....It makes more sense to do it by the level of captain the fleet has. A level 40 PC who's specced for combat in a decent frigate or destroyer can kill cruisers as effectively as a level 40 PC with a fleet.
alex: regarding the exp have you thought about some ratio system when it comes to the size of opposing fleets? i mean you should get more exp if your 2 frigates with 6FP total beat a 12FP cruiser than if you roflstomp the same cruiser with a 20FP onslaught.....
It makes more sense to do it by the level of captain the fleet has. A level 40 PC who's specced for combat in a decent frigate or destroyer can kill cruisers as effectively as a level 40 PC with a fleet.
That's the choice you have to make. Do you want a few highly advanced ships, or a lot of not so advanced ships.
Limitless progression is something very common in the "new" wave of casual games. Choices and limits are what makes games hard, challenging and in the end fun, imo.well as mattk50 already said we have limits and quite hard ones youre simply not going to turn a lasher into a battleships no matter how hard you try and how much exp and money you invest into it
Level progress won't be fast as now. I do not think that other aptitudes and skills have such big influence as Leadership. So with maxed out Leadership and skills you have 180FP (right?) and with maxed out combat you have 38FP? I do not think that fleet with 38FP can beat up fleet with 180FP. Leadership vs Technology = Leadership wins.
It looks like that game forces you to invest in Leadership.
You wont be able to have anywhere close to 180 FP deployed at the same time, The big fleet will have a hell of a lot of reserves, sure, but fill out all of technology and Combat and then carefully outfit a paragon, and you will be astounded by how ruthlessly it tears up everything.Lol i forgot about that.
An I the only one who doesn't think leveling is really fast? I have been playing for the past 4 days and I am only 18~? I'm not saying its fine where it is but you guys act like its going extremely fast.
Which is why I made my segestion
That can all get addressed by mods or by a relatively easy change to the battlefield code, getting rid of the dribbling reinforcements problem.
It would be nice to have a readout under your character screen showing a list of the different bonuses you get from your stuff.
Limits such as "this is your speed limit" and "you cant fit more than this many guns on this" is one thing. But the whole fleet point system just feels arbitrary. I still think that down the line this system will be able to be wholly replaced by more flexible systems, backed by an ingame economy or support something like that, and the leadership progression can be moved to more stuff such as keeping down compounded costs on running a fleet of a certain size. (this already kinda but not really happens, because its more of a hard cap in disguise and costs multiply out of control too quickly, and that soft cap stays stationary.)
@firstattak1: Again, you can't both have large buffs to individual ships and to fleet size. You either go with a large fleet where you get few bonuses to your controlled ship, or you buff your ship. Like Alex said, this gives us who prefer smaller fleets a fighting chance. If you had been able to have both, a large fleet with many buffs, you would be overpowered. If you want to just own larger fleets, you get officers for it, and send them off on their own.
the problem is some one us have A LOT of time on their hands *looks at ValkyriaL*
i mean nothing at all ;) just saying some of us have more time than others and 4 hours i still more than what others may have ;)Quotethe problem is some one us have A LOT of time on their hands *looks at ValkyriaL*
Oi, what do you mean by that? i play starfarer 4 hours tops. ::) got school duties you know.
If you have high-tech ships, auto-resolve is your friendworks with big ships as well and they dont need to be high tech...i can autoresolve pretty much anything with my onslaught/hyperion combo
So far, I haven't lost a single ship, and I'm primarily fighting the large pirate fleets. My fleet consists of an apogee, a medusa and two tempests, with only enough points spent in leadership to be within the FP limit, with the rest spent on gunnery, speed, flux, and ordnance points.I use the same build but with 2 medusas ( lost my 3rd on iron mode)
The game is a lot better now, and is a lot of fun to play. The leveling feels about right. It's not too fast, but doesn't take too long either.
(I'm assuming yes since the number stated are 37 and 180.)You are assuming right.
If they generated FP, first of all, that means you can have an infinite amount of command ships and a fleet that expands into infinity, wouldn't really work, even if they cost half of the FP they generate, that means that you can have another command ship in that extra 5 FP the other one unlocks, and that would also expand into infinity, if they were to cost more than that, they wouldn't have any good purpose and nobody would buy them,
Amazing game man, here's to the successful release!
Saw some youtube videos on this game and I bought it, and I'm glad I did ;D
Cheers! ;)
Amazing game man, here's to the successful release!
Saw some youtube videos on this game and I bought it, and I'm glad I did ;D
Cheers! ;)
Amazing game man, here's to the successful release!
Saw some youtube videos on this game and I bought it, and I'm glad I did ;D
Cheers! ;)
Oh, agreed! I got my money's worth from the game in the first month alone.
That was well over a year ago. ;D
Amazing game man, here's to the successful release!
Saw some youtube videos on this game and I bought it, and I'm glad I did ;D
Cheers! ;)
Oh, agreed! I got my money's worth from the game in the first month alone.
That was well over a year ago. ;D
If any game deserves 50$ or euros when it's done it is this one,not the "AAA" titles that you get bored of in one week.I've been playing this baby for nearly a year now and it is still awesome.Considering it's alpha state...That's pretty damned good.
Agree with these guys. So far, the only games that can compare to this one in terms of cost/hours spent are Minecraft and Garrys Mod.
I purposely excluded EVE Online, because it's an MMO. I pay 15 euro every month, and don't play several hundred hours every month, so it's nowhere close to any of the ones I mentioned.
Agree with these guys. So far, the only games that can compare to this one in terms of cost/hours spent are Minecraft and Garrys Mod.
KSP, M&B, EVE online, and Dwarf fortress
I feel as though sometimes this game is suffering from the Infinity syndrome, where the guy spent years trying to perfect, how a planet looks, how space backgrounds and particle dust and nebula looks, and forgot ;the game;That is not what is happening here. Every major patch bring something new. I do not see "Infinity syndrome", here.
I do wonder if you'll have social interactions with your Officers similarly to Mount and Blade or in a Bioware game or whether your relationship will be purely statistic, such as in Leylines or Endless Space. Both offer different possibilities, the latter is possibly preferable for long term playability in a procedurally generated sector.
I do wonder if you'll have social interactions with your Officers similarly to Mount and Blade or in a Bioware game or whether your relationship will be purely statistic, such as in Leylines or Endless Space. Both offer different possibilities, the latter is possibly preferable for long term playability in a procedurally generated sector.
Actually looking at that now. Nothing concrete to report yet, but exploring the possibilities is interesting.
I do wonder if you'll have social interactions with your Officers similarly to Mount and Blade or in a Bioware game or whether your relationship will be purely statistic, such as in Leylines or Endless Space. Both offer different possibilities, the latter is possibly preferable for long term playability in a procedurally generated sector.
Also forgive my ignorance, but does industry do anything? I have found no references to it other than the character screen.
This is the announcement thread, so let me make an announcement:No, this is the 0.54a update thread. This thread has nothing to do with short story contests. ::) ::) ::)
*drum roll*
The First Starfarer Short Story contest is in the voting phase! So come to this thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5040.0), read the stories and vote for your favorites!
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3198/clipboard02as.png) (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5040.0)
@Starlight: Thanks for bringing this up. You'r right, #2 ought to be an option - added that to my list for the next release. #3 - you may run into trouble keying skills to an item, there's nothing to support that type of connection yet.
Hey Alex, do you actually plan to do some kind of balance/bugfixing .1 release or will the next update be a another big feature update some time away? I don't think a bugfix release is really needed, but I have seen some deviating assumptions in the forum.
ah thats were good to hear cant wait for both of those patches
Yes, there'll be a .1 release. Since there's nothing urgent (though there are a few modding-related fixes/features I'd like to put out soon-ish), I'm not rushing it - but rather fixing things here and there, while also doing some prototyping-type work for the next feature release. So, even though the .1 isn't out yet, technically work has already started on the release after that :)
The change log for the .1 release is actually pretty sizable already. I'll see about posting it tomorrow.
just wondering what the road map for the game is currently.
What's stewing in Starfarer's development at the moment? I hope there's gonna be some interaction in the game down the line. I think someone referred to character development as a sort of content tap for the game. Interesting for replayability, but it doesn't add much. Honestly what Starfarer needs most at this point is to have some kind of meaning in the campaign. Relationships between groups, trade, structures to make your actions in the game significant.
I know all this stuff will come in time, just wondering what the road map for the game is currently.