Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

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.

Topics - Alfalfa

Pages: [1]
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
Suggestions / Commisioned Refits
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:21:12 PM »
I've played through many character builds of various types: Admirals of huge fleets; Commanders of elite squadrons; lone-wolfs of unparalleled skill.  As I've done so, I've become increasingly concerned with my reliance on the Technology Aptitude, and with the Computer Systems and Mechanical Engineering skills in particular.  No matter my strategy, whether individual prowess or overwhelming numbers, eventually the most effective way to increase my combat strength is to invest in this Aptitude. 

It is the only way, aside from the level 10 perk or the Ordinance Expert skill, to increase the ordinance capacity of my ships.  It also provides access to 19 of the 22 hullmods.  Computer Systems and Mechanical Engineering account for 80% of the potential ordinance increase and over a third of these hullmods.  However, the idea of simply nerfing the aptitude or skills doesn't really appeal to me, as increasing the capabilities of your ships will always be attractive, whatever you set as the comparative threshold versus the Combat or Leadership Aptitudes.

This situation reminds me very much of a similar problem encountered in another game: Skyrim.  In Skyrim, the Smithing skill allowed you to create your own weapons, and the Enchanting skill allowed you to improve these weapons.  At their highest levels, the weapons produced in this manner were far and away the best one could acquire in the game.  Thus, for a warrior to achieve his fullest potential, it was necessary to invest in these skills.  The problem with both these systems is not the advantages they convey, but the exclusiveness of those advantages.  Your character in Skyrim was not the only smith or enchanter in the province, as I assume your character in Starsector is not the only technologist.  Certainly it is reasonable to expect inimitable advantages for heavy investment into a skill, but at the same time having to completely forego any benefits whatsoever for focusing on other areas is painful.

My suggestion is that the player be able to commision, for a hefty fee, advanced refits of his ships beyond what his own skills allow.  These could be limited in customizability and the amount of excess ordinance allowed, as well as disallow tampering afterwards, in much the same way as the loadouts of starting or captured ships do currently.

TL;DR: I ain't no nerd, but the tech apt is crazy fly, yo!  Lemme grease some palms at the yard to pimp out my ride when I roll up with Space Genghis!

Pages: [1]