Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Painting the Stars (02/07/20)

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 - c plus one

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Suggestions / Re: Pirate bases should be easier to find.
« on: August 27, 2019, 03:26:55 AM »
Agreed. This whole dynamic seems intended as a blend of exploration meets pest control, but at present its "needle in a haystack" aspect is just excessively burdensome grinding.

2
Suggestions / Re: Rename Sabot to Flechette
« on: August 11, 2019, 02:23:29 PM »
( Humble correction: there are only two t's in "flechette," not three. )

This game's Light/Heavy/Storm Needler weapons already fire flechette rounds, being needleguns in space; please refer to the Codex. Renaming the Sabot missile to Flechette missile isn't necessarily a guaranteed improvement that's worth the disruption to the playerbase - you're proposing renaming a core component of the game's arsenal. The missile isn't some obscure, niche weapon that's seldom encountered in Starfarer and would cause no trouble if re-branded (either gratuitously or of necessity). ???

Respecting the precedent established long ago by those gun-type weapons in this game, one could argue that it would be at least as desirable and clarity-generating to rename the Sabot missile to "Needler" missile. I am mostly neutral to doing such; others might think differently.

3
Suggestions / Re: Faction control: commodity legality toggles!
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:17:28 AM »
I like how this would introduce more nuance and granularity to the game. As you observed, I also think that in concert with implementation of your suggested Tariff Slider in-game control this legality toggle would serve the player well.

Would the buffs/nerfs stack across time?

4
Suggestions / Re: Colony control: tariff slider!
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:09:46 AM »
Yes, please! This is not only structurally better than the existing no-player-agency implementation, but it's also considerably more interesting as well. Put the decision-making power where it belongs: in the player's hands.

5
Discussions / Re: Other media that feels like Starsector
« on: November 26, 2018, 10:56:07 PM »
"Firefly" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)] had elements which likely inspired a few aspects of this game's general feel. The show was made 16 years ago, and still has a devoted following. Such a shame that it was cancelled by soulless salesdroids masquerading as corporate executives.

6
Suggestions / Re: Event notifications should respect pause state
« on: November 18, 2018, 08:32:10 PM »
An emphatic +1.

7
Suggestions / Re: rename Escort order to Protect
« on: July 28, 2018, 08:04:44 PM »
It's not that the player doesn't understand that the escorting ship will try to protect the escortee, it's that certain ships will act in ridiculous and suicidal ways when told to protect other ships, which is not intuitive. It needs to be fixed, not better explained.

Emphasis mine. A decisive fix to that will significantly help. I'm increasingly frustrated by the current highly counterproductive behaviour in-game.

8
It's difficult for me as well. Not impossible, but needlessly difficult due to the game GUI. Hard to get ahead on the strategic level when you can't easily & instantly see where you are currently located. It would be helpful if this design oversight was addressed. Please consider this - thx :)


9
On a related note, can fighters and/or missiles travel faster than speed 600?

If so, how much faster?

10
Not only do I fully support the proposal, but I've been annoyed for a while that it's not already in the game. The need is certainly there.

There's also no way of getting into the codex from within the salvage operation UI.

An important oversight; triply so for the impact upon inexperienced players.

11
Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« on: April 27, 2018, 04:56:01 PM »
I think I would like to see a range boost hullmod whose purpose is to give a flat bump in range to all weapons (50/100/200/300), incompatible with ITU/DTC/ATC, and costing less than the original hullmod (3/6/12/18 OP).  This would offer a cheaper option somewhere in between an ITU and having no ITU, with a niche applicable to extremely short-range weapons.

I would very much like to see such a hullmod added to the official game content.


Right now, since ITU/DTC don't really have a cheap alternative, the choice really just boils down to:
1. Use ITU/DTC.
2. Make a balls-to-the-wall berserker build.

There's not much depth.

Agreed in full. We should have a "third way" to allow finer-grained build/variant diversity.

12
Suggestions / Re: Phase Ship Time Boost
« on: April 23, 2018, 04:21:59 PM »
Maybe just have manual speed-up button? Phase ships aren't the worst case in 'taking ton of time to get to enemies' anyway - that's Paragon.
I second this. A few speed controls would be lovely, something like .5, 1, 2, 3.

I am in favour of this particular in-game speed-throttle implementation. Please add an "x4" to the above buttons, too.

13
Suggestions / Re: Split Escort order into "Assist" and "Protect"
« on: April 12, 2018, 07:27:47 PM »
Techhead, I'd truly enjoy having something like this in the game. I'm especially fond of your vision of the Assist order.  :)

My humble $0.02:
The current implementation of the Escort order is, to put it kindly, sub-optimal. All too often, chaotic skirmishers can't get as much done without excessive collateral damage or fumbled opportunities than a better-disciplined group of allies can get done. I welcome such a proposal for more granularity when it comes to telling our companion ships how to effectively protect one another. I dislike seeing ships dying of AI-self-inflicted maneuver & targeting-priority fail that often still doesn't get the desired "bodyguard/focus-fire" job done.

14
Suggestions / Re: Seasonal Ladders
« on: April 12, 2018, 05:14:43 AM »
This really doesn't fit with SS and I'd rather Alex not waste time on this instead of making the game.

+2.

15
General Discussion / Re: UI too small
« on: April 11, 2018, 06:58:11 PM »
Game looks alright at 3440x1440 to me (sure fonts are small, but it's not like I really need to read them - most of the time I already know what's written there).
Being able to zoom out really far is nice and outweighs drawbacks of small fonts to me.

I agree that a vastly greater extent of zoom is very nice, but what about everyone who doesn't have all of the in-game text memorized?  ???  
I certainly haven't.

For my part, I happen to find the poor resolution of the game's UI to be a constant irritant on either of my dual 2560x1440 monitors, and I loathe running any program (game or otherwise) in fullscreen mode.

1440p monitors have been available since at least 2009 (nine years ago!), and at this late date they're now mainstream. Probably not dominant, but clearly mainstream (especially outside of niche gaming interests). What about all of the new players whom all of us here earnestly hope will be purchasing Starsector after it attains the golden version of 1.0? They're definitely not going to have all of the in-game text content memorized. No one can reasonably expect the majority of them to "enjoy" being de facto forced to run fullscreen on current displays and then down-rezzed in order to keep Starsector's small font sizes even partially convenient.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10