Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Alfalfa

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Discussion / Alex Appreciation Thread
« on: August 21, 2020, 01:06:38 AM »
So, I bought Starsector way back in 2012, back when it was called Starfarer, for something stupid low, like $20 or less.  As much flak as they receive, I'm personally a big fan of 'Early Access' games, starting with Starsector's most common comparison: Mount & Blade.  I feel that the format allows neophyte developers to present their concept directly to consumers in a manner that allows them to buy into their vision in a iterative way that gradually validates their concept from initital prototype to realized product in a gradual progression from risk-taking 'investors' to savvy consumers.  However, as much as I love many games that fall into this format, most of them fall victim to 'feature bloat,' where they start from an initial version demonstrating an innovational concept and progressively tack on more and more features in a haphazard fashion in an attempt to fill out their initial concept and never end up resulting in a well constructed final product.

As someone who's played games for most of their life, found themselves analyzing their structure, design, and purpose behind such, as well as toyed with the idea of delving into the creation of, I find myself continuously impressed with the deliberation with which Alex approaches the addition of new and alteration of existing features.  Following the arc of development, I see someone who started with a reasonably concrete vision of what he wanted to achieve, settled on a starting point (combat) and implemented that genesis point with as much accuracy as his initial perspective allowed, then iteratively added features, bit by bit, in moderation and with full consideration of the impact they would have on the groundwork he had already laid as he could muster, in order to inch his work towards it's final goal.

This approach, of starting from the main gameplay loop and consciously developing outwards, is one I have been consistently impressed with, and which I would emulate were I ever to take on a project of this magnitude and recommend studying to anyone interested in game design.  Too many games as of late seem to merely emulate without considering the ramifications one feature has upon another, pale in comparison to Alex's considered approach to development.

I've come back to this game time and time again since purchase, and almost every design decision he's made, whether I agree with it at the time or not, I've found to positively influence the experience.

As a fan of playing and analyzing games, I just wanted to throw out a kudos to Alex for being a shining example of a developer.

2
General Discussion / Re: Combat readyness poll.
« on: October 14, 2013, 01:14:14 PM »
I like all of the new logistics system, but I can understand why many people dislike it, particularly CR.  I believe it will make a lot more sense once more campaign-level features are implemented.  Probably the most important:

    - Non-combat focused activities
    - Fleet support (supply, reinforcement, et cetera) systems
    - Officers (who could invest in Combat to combat Combat Readiness
    - Leadership skills to affect CR

This game was always intended to be far more expansive than the core combat everyone fell in love with.  This update, with logistics, hyperspace, and new star systems was the first real step towards that, and is comparable to an extensive transit system built in an area that, though currently sparsely populated, will grow rapidly.  There are going to be many additions to the campaign layer, and each one will slot nicely into this newly erected framework.

3
So I somehow failed to notice the array of is[ShipClass]() boolean methods  :-X, so I switched over to those and things were working much better.  Also, I found a logical error in a loop break I had which was causing inappropriate and erratic behaviour (the most infuriating to debug).  So I think I've got everything sorted out now, thanks again for all your replies.  Obviously I need to clean up my code a bit.

...

I did not know what an Enumerator was before today, but now I hate them oh so very, very, much.  I came up with the solution in about 10 minutes, and have now spent hours attempting to use this Enumerator to perform an incredibly simple task, one I could have accomplished within 40 seconds had the classes been represented with integers.

...

This is how I felt about most java features before I started using an IDE. Java is insanely picky about usages - it completely crippled my programming for the first 10 ish hours I used it because things that I know work in several other languages would fail for no 'good' reason. Being able to do rapid experimentation in an IDE (I use netbeans) and get instant feedback as to when I make a syntax error was key to me learning the rules.

I certainly find Java to be picky to the point of being pedantic.  I am in fact using an IDE, Eclipse, though I suspect I haven't set up many soul-preserving features.

4
Here's the relevant piece of code:

Code
velocityMod = x / MAXIMUM_MASS * FIELD_STRENGTH;
            if (entity instanceof ShipAPI){
            HullSize shipClass = (HullSize) ((ShipAPI) entity).getHullSize();
            if (shipClass == (HullSize) ShipAPI.HullSize.valueOf("FIGHTER")) {
            velocityMod *= 1;
            } else if (shipClass == (HullSize) ShipAPI.HullSize.valueOf("FRIGATE")) {
            velocityMod *= 1;   
            } else if (shipClass == (HullSize) ShipAPI.HullSize.valueOf("DESTROYER")) {
            velocityMod *= DESTROYER_MOD;
            } else if (shipClass == (HullSize) ShipAPI.HullSize.valueOf("CRUISER")) {
            velocityMod *= CRUISER_MOD;
            } else if (shipClass == (HullSize) ShipAPI.HullSize.valueOf("CAPITAL_SHIP")) {
            velocityMod *= CAPITAL_SHIP_MOD;
            } else {
            velocityMod *= 1;
            }
            /*switch (shipClass) {
            case (HullSize) DESTROYER: velocityMod *= DESTROYER_MOD;
            case (HullSize) CRUISER: velocityMod *= CRUISER_MOD;
            case (HullSize) CAPITAL_SHIP: velocityMod *= CAPITAL_SHIP_MOD;
            }*/
            }

Thank you for the replies to my earlier question.  It seems it was an issue with how I was handling the Enumerator type.  I've now gotten past the syntax errors and have encountered a logic one.  The 'field' generated by this code is supposed to be modified for all ships larger than a frigate.  Instead it is modified for all ships.  Nothing should happen to fighters or frigates with that code.  The only possibility is that this method of differentiating the different Enumerator values is not working.

I did not know what an Enumerator was before today, but now I hate them oh so very, very, much.  I came up with the solution in about 10 minutes, and have now spent hours attempting to use this Enumerator to perform an incredibly simple task, one I could have accomplished within 40 seconds had the classes been represented with integers.

Anyone know about Enumerators?

5
Ok this is driving me bats.  I need to get the hull size of a ship.

The ship is contained in a CombatEntity variable named 'entity.'  I check if entity isinstanceof ShipAPI, then I call entity.getHullSize().  Starsector crashes, insisting that no such method exists.  I have imported CombatEntity, ShipAPI, ShipAPI.HullSize, etc.  I have typecast the variable as ShipAPI.  I have tried entity.HullSize.

I know this method exists.  I opened up ShipAPI and the photons proving its existence are entering my cornea right now.

What the bejeezus is going on?

6
The tactical interface could definitely use some love.  More in-depth, and more importantly, more timely notifications would be a great thing.  It's nice to know when my ships are exploding, but it would be even nicer to know when they're about to explode.  Some sort of 'standing orders' system would also be welcome, although if Gothars is correct and that's intended to be a part of the officer system (as I suspect he is), it would be awesome if that gets rolled out ASAP.

It would solve a whole bunch of issues: Player/AI balance; finer control over ship AI; reluctance to invest in Combat personally yet still wanting a high-performance combatant.

7
Discussions / Re: FTL
« on: October 08, 2013, 05:01:12 PM »
I played this game non-stop for two weeks when I bought it.  I thought I was going to lose my soul to it, but then XCom came in and ninja'd it.

I don't really remember that month that well.

8
General Discussion / Re: Tips and tricks for 0.6a
« on: October 08, 2013, 04:57:46 PM »
Yes, I've started doing 'whittling' attacks on Hegemony fleets.  I'll go in, set up near the border, and kill all of their fighters/frigates and maybe a few destroyers, then when the Onslaughts/Dominators start coming in everybody runs.  If they press for an escape battle, I whittle them down a bit more as I go.  Finally, I'll take out their big ships; one at a time if necessary.  This method (which is distinct from Gothar's) doesn't get you a lot of loot, but it's good for destroying strong fleets with minimal losses.  I was using it while playing the Exerelin mod to quickly 'clear the air' and allow my faction to expand.

9
Suggestions / Re: Guided Missiles Autofire Based on Range
« on: October 05, 2013, 06:59:13 PM »
Huh, I could've sworn the Salamanders didn't, but I guess that comes down to the hetic-ness of fighting an entire plunder fleet with only two Lashers in Escort. :D Guess I'll try Sabots next, and if they don't work then stick to the Salamanders.

Sorry for the waste of time. :-\

Lol, haven't you ever cornered a Buffalo Mk. II?  That thing will shoot all of its missiles at once!  Backwards, forwards, sideways, it fires missiles from places I never knew existed.  ;)

10
Suggestions / Re: UI Tweaks
« on: October 05, 2013, 06:55:37 PM »
I'm not sure if there is a cool code name for that info panel in the lower left corner of the screen on the campaign map, so I'm just going to go ahead and call it Pancakes.

I love Pancakes, but Pancakes gives me heartburn for a few reasons:

1. I don't like how the Fleetwide Hull Status indicator doesn't include armor. I feel like a ship's armor level is a better indicator of its ability to hold up in a fight, so I'd like to see it included in that percentage (and the name would need to change as well).

Hull has to be repaired before armour, right?  Then what about a doubled up bar?  So first it fills up with hull status in gray or something, then fills up again in silver or whatever to indicate armour status.

Quote
2. While the Fleetwide Combat Readiness bar is sweet, it feels a little counter-intuitive. Something that combat readiness is supposed to do is stop you from hitting your "Deploy All" button every time in combat (and it did that very effectively for me). However, I find myself ignoring the Fleetwide Combat Readiness bar for that same reason: the ships I didn't deploy bring up the percentage too much and give me a false indicator on how prepared my fleet is for conflict. While I don't have the perfect answer, I would like to see CR indicated on a more ship-to-ship basis.

How about a small line delineating combat ships from non-coms?  So all your non-coms would be indicated in the leftmost portion of the bar, sitting at full CR generally, with a small vertical bar separating them from the portion of the bar indicating the CR of your combat ships.  Or you could even make it dynamic, say all ships that weren't deployed in the last battle and are at full CR are indicated in the leftmost 'mini-bar.'

Quote
3. While the panel offers fantastic info at a glance, I feel that it isn't the best at displaying the helpful details while in the fleet screen. I like how it expands as you get to the fleet menu, but I feel it could get a little bigger and give you some more indepth info. For example: it takes a little bit to get used to the fact that supplies/day is what affects your LR rating. If the panel had a display informing you of how much these ships were costing you, and showed how it affected your LR, it would be super helpful.

Perhaps Pancakes should splatter his innards all along the left-hand side while in the fleet screen.

Quote
Even with these problems, Pancakes is fantastic. Thanks, Alex, for making Pancakes.

Happy Name Day, Pancakes!!!  ;D (never referring to this as anything else unless specifically queried)

11
Suggestions / Re: Aesthetic Customisations and Modifications
« on: October 05, 2013, 06:36:22 PM »
I still think Gotcha!'s overlay idea gives us the most bang for our buck of the ideas proposed so far.

12
Suggestions / Re: UI feedback
« on: October 05, 2013, 06:30:38 PM »
Something that's been bothering me more and more as I've been playing the update is the lack of delineation between the ship classes in-store.  I seem to recall this being brought up before and it being argued that the classes weren't particularly important, which I accepted at the time, but this has proven to be not the case.  A ship's class determines whether it is affected by Peak Performance Time, what benefits it receives from the Navigation skill, what hullmods it can install and at what cost, how the AI treats it, et cetera.  I propose a simple thick border between ships of different classes in the store menu.  It wouldn't even have to move ships of another class to the next row, it could just snake around them.

13
General Discussion / Re: Dreaming of MP
« on: October 05, 2013, 04:48:02 PM »
Hell yeah.  Simply a multiplayer skirmish would be awesome.  I think a team-based free-for-all would be what I would most like to see.  You could have an 'admiral' who would give orders and possibly pilot the flagship.  You'd have to set some kind of limits so you wouldn't have all Paragons and Hyperions all the time, but balance be damned!  I just want to be able to blow up that annoying hound and know that he was made to suffer as I suffered when he flamed out my engines.

14
Bug Reports & Support / Re: F1 To Expand.
« on: October 05, 2013, 04:22:50 PM »
Why not simply have a 'bar' or something along the bottom where when you move the mouse over/across it expands the tooltip?  Like:

+-------------------+
|Mouseover Tooltip
+-------------------+
|Expandy bar
+-------------------+

15
General Discussion / Re: Are fighters supposed to be so costly?
« on: October 04, 2013, 06:53:52 AM »
An issue that's bothering me:
Currently, in addition to reflecting logistics cost of maintaining and fielding a ship, CR for fighters also pulls double duty in representing how many spare fighters a wing can have, and (with the CR recovery/day value) how fast it can manufacture those spares. This leads to silly things like Mining Pods having the second highest per-battle cost (10% CR craft -> 40% CR per wing; 5% CR recovery per day) and Thunders having the second-lowest despite their relatively high CR per craft deployed (7% CR per craft -> 14% CR for the wing; 5% CR recovery per day).

Some of this could be solved by number tweaking, but as long as CR means so many different things there are probably going to be cases where it's a problem (e.g. you can't have a fighter wing that's cheap to run but expensive to replace, or has a low number of replacements).

One idea I came up with: undestroyed fighters refund half their CR deployment cost at the end of the battle; reduced if they take armor/hull damage. This fixes the silly immersion breaker of fighters that return intact having exactly the same CR cost as those that get destroyed, and makes certain fighter wings (like the aforementioned Mining Pod) more affordable without having to change other key characteristics. It doesn't solve all the aspects of the issue I described above, though.

If I recall correctly, CR recovery rate is directly tied to repair rate, and the CR recovery cost is tied to repair cost.  To make a wing that's low-maintenance and expensive to replace, give them a low supply/day and a high repair cost (or high CR/deployment for low number of replacements).  As for Mining Pods, I imagine their CR values are probably a bit off in this version.

Lessened CR for intact fighters makes sense, though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7