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 - Q8

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I never said remove tariff so players can trade more profitably, I was talking specifically about rare stuff in the context of these factions needing them badly.

you don't understand what immersion means, you don't need a simulation game, it's all about your own ability to immerse yourself in it's world. and I have immersed myself quite nicely in this one and I like to keep that immersion going.

saying that immersion is a buzzword is just sad. if you can't role-play, leave others to enjoy themselves however they want.

Nanoforges and Synchotron Cores should be able to be directly traded for money and reputation to faction commanders, just like AI cores are.

When they make use of it themselves, perhaps transfering it to another planet or even be prompted to building the appropriate industry on that planet if none available, it makes perfect sense. It would feel like you are helping that faction and be rewarded for it.

exactly, I wonder why other people are incapable of understanding this.
you are the one that is incapable of understanding...

immersion argument is void, coz everybody has their own immersion. I think that tariffs should be higher. What now? Are u about to tell me that your immersion is more important than mine?

2
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 20, 2019, 10:31:57 AM »
@Histidine
Dude, if u think that 18% and 9% tariffs are better, then play Nexerelin. Whats the problem?

This whole topic went over the cuckoo's nest on the page one.
...Tariffs are fine.
If i want to offload crap looted from wherever without reputation hit, i sell it for whatever on the first dock i anchor.
If i want to earn, i sell on the black market, and take a hit to the reputation.
And if i want both, i go dark and work it, witch is not easy, without the sensors perk. Or i go and sell to pirates, that is easier, but may upgrade their ***.
...Tarifs are fine.
Lowering tariffs will only make the game shorter, and the game is short enough as it is. Short to the point, that Alex prolonged it by upping the prices on buildings himself, just for that reason... ye, I better stop here, before ill go into another rant about building prices....

3
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 10:04:00 PM »
I for one, dont know/think if thats even important.
If i can make chairs for 5$/h and tables for 10$/h, im basically always making tables.
But in a game? does anybody ever sat infront of the screen, and tough to himself, well, i would go and hunt for that bounty there, but that exploration mission is more profitable, so i guess im doing that!? anybody?
Do you people really think, that to make "trade" more... hmm... useful? used more often? whats the word... valid? ... you have to make it more profitable?
...I dont know man... i dont know.
Especially since ingame time is not important at all.

4
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:06:50 PM »
[...]

Just for you I'm making an exception and making just one more comment. You learned all that since you wrote this a month ago?
O.o? The hell does that has to do with anyt... whatever.
I honestly think you should calm down.


Alex, can we have Salt as a trade resource? Harvested from ancient data caches of course.
What? you want to be able to harvest Angelina from data cashes? the hell? didnt she cut of her boobs?

5
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 02:35:18 AM »
Ouh, its so good u wrote that, because now i can be an SOB back at you, and nobody will hold that against me.

I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.
No, you didnt. Your suggestions are all garbage. This is not how u suggest changes to the working systems. You have to realize, that what ure asking for, is not a point blank change to an item of code, like nerf a gun, or make a ship faster, or make AI consider turning on the shields when an opponent is in [range + blink range] if the opponent can blink. Those changes would be such, that you wouldnt need opposable thumbs to implement them. That means, that the idea is more important than the implementation. You on the other hand, are trying to make a change to the system itself. This is not the same thing. You cant just write... (quoted from the top post):
1. Situation a: a planets supply of a good equals it's demand - universal tariff for both buying and selling on the open market of 5%

2. Situation b: a planet has higher supply of a certain good then demand: - if the player buys on that market there is no tariff
                                                                                                                          - if the player sells on that market there is a 10% tariff for every 100/200 units that planet has a surplus of

3. Situation c: a planet has a higher demand for a good then it produces locally: - if the player buys on that market he gets a 10% tariff on his transactions for every 100/200 units the planet has a deficit of
                                                                                                                                     - if the players sells on that planet there is no tariff
...and think to yourslef "ka-ching! jobes done!"
This, what you are doing, is basically the same as me coming to you and telling u to paint me The Lady Of Shalott, but blond. What do you think? can u do that for me? Youve seen the picture, didnt you?
...Ofc you cant. Because the idea is not important. The implementation is.

Im gonna give you one more example. How to write a proper suggestion.

Here we go. Lets say, i dont like how the prices work. So i think to myself, that in reality, supply and demand are not really the main thing that goes into the price, value of the currency is. So, my idea would be, to make a different currency for every planet, based on import/export value. That would create a system, that is deep enough for an average player, not to see the bottom(witch would help him keep the immersion running), but shallow enough for the coder, not to grow old while programming the system.
What i suggest is:
1.Create a constant value for the main currency (credits), something like primo$ = 1 = const;
2.Create base values of goods in primo$'s, like 1fuel = 25primo$ (this point is already in the game, i write it only to be clear)
3.Create a new variable for every colony, that will represent the planets currency price, something like planetA$ = primo$;
4.Create a loop (month long for example) with planetA$ = planetA$ * V  where V = export(planetA)/import(planetA). That wouldnt be too hard to code, since import and export values are already in the game.
5.Multiply all the prices by planetA$ value.
and 6.Play around with V. Cap it abit maybe, smooth it alittle, etc.
All that would, in few easy steps, add abit of life into the existing system(that is at this moment really easy to seethrou, ergo, boring and immersionbreaking)

Okay, i think i made my point.

6
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 17, 2019, 09:40:23 AM »
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

7
@TaLaR
Youre speaking past me, because i never made a single statement about a 'player piloted' hyperion. I even mentioned in my post before that:
[...]Or, you would have to give people reasons for flying frigates, even tho there are bigger ships around.[...]
That was a small point about the game pushing you, a player, to jump into the biggest ship youve got. So why would i even consider flying a frigate?

But okay, ill bite, lets talk about it.
First of all, your video of beating paragon with a hyperion is nothing if not making my point about AI being buggy. All that paragon has to do, is to turn the shield on, and u cant touch it anymore. Second, when was the last time you fought solo Paragon? Or solo whatever to that matter? Third, AI doesnt need to perfectly block any shots, it needs to kill you. It needs to kill you one time. And when you are fighting 200vs200 mid~late game fights, and where carriers are present, the strategy of jumping in the middle of a bunch of ships, without the omni shields or PDs vs salamanders, is semi-proper at best. So all you can do is pick off ships that stray on the flanks... And for clamping on the flanks you got Tempests, that are almost four times cheaper, and i would argue, that 205 speed +50 (coz the best part about the tempest is the fact that tempest doesnt lose the +50 for using its PDs) is at least comparable to teleporting. ***, for 15DPs you can have a falcon.
All things youre counting here can be done cheaper and more reliably with some other ship, and that other ship wont bankrupt you in the process...

At the end of the day, hyperion will stay just a fun little thing that you can *** around with in the simulator, and nothing else

8
Hyperion is the way it is because the teleporter is so strong that the rest of the ship had to be nerfed into the ground to make it 'balanced'. It definitely needs to be adjusted. I would prefer a nerf of the teleporter (probably some sort of cool down mechanic) and buffs in other areas rather than a rework so that it keeps some of its identity, but it could be interesting to just make it into a different ship.
rofl
Teleporter is NOT strong. The only reason teleporter is "strong" is the fact that AI doesnt add blink range into the weapon range when considering anything, even basics like turning the shields up. This is NOT strength. This is exploit.

9
I think, that this is all going in a wrong direction.
Lets start from the top.

Embolism, at the top wrote, that:

a)Phase Teleporter is bad, ergo hyperion is bad.
 And i do agree. What Embolism fails to realize, is that he stumbled onto a much bigger problem.
Hyperion is garbage. That statment may be abit exaggerated, but whatever. Am not afraid to say it. And reasons for it are a bunch. The most important ones go as follows:
1. 70/100 weight approximately. The biggest reason is the fact, that AI is *** at flying frigates. This is a big subject, that deserves a topic on its own, so all ill write here is that if there are enemy ships present, that are bigger than a destroyer, frigates become useless, since AI is bad at fights where opponent has more range. And if there are carriers present, frigates become somehow even worse than useless.
2. 20/100 weight approximately. Second to the size is the fact, that as was mentioned before, AI is bad at using mobility abilities. So, Phase teleporter is just being wasted, while having something like HEF wouldnt be. Subjectively, if i may say so, i think that blinking is overated ingeneral...
3. 10/100 weight approximately. Tempest exists. Tempest is flat out better in everything but shield. It turns better, its stronger, has more armor, more hull, its dirt cheap compared to hyperion. It packs a mean punch with its HEF. It has better flux profiles arguable, if you consider that terminator drones are for free. And most importantly its faster, and has better mounts.

My point is, that the reason why hyperion is garbage, is not hyperion related. Its bigger. So if you decide to change the ship, into HEF or anything else, im afraid that that wouldnt fix the problem, it would just make it same type of crap but for a slightly different set of reasons.

To fix hyperion, you would have to fix all the frigates. You would have to address the AI problem. Or, you would have to give people reasons for flying frigates, even tho there are bigger ships around.

b)Recall Device makes the game boring.
 And again this is true, but you have it backwards. In a world where AI knows what to do, and for example is camping its fighters around the ship that your bombers are targeting, and attacking them before they reach the drop zone, Recall is nothing else, but a semi useful skill that sometimes saves a ship from destruction, but i dont care about it, since that bomber, that potentially can be saved, can be saved only after he dropped his bomb already, and at that point i dont give a *** anymore. Its even better, if someone is shooting at an empty bomber, instead of shooting at something more important, like bombs for example.
But because AI doesnt know what to do, and AI fighters just fight mostly whatever, bombing runs are safe on the runs to the targets, and in danger only after they droped the bombs already. ANd thus Recall shines. If the danger was, like it should be, on the way TO the drop zone, that would, potentially, force people to mix bombers with support to cover the runs, as you said you would like to see happening.
`And there is also a second point, that Recall is not really a safety mechanism, but a speed mechanism, since it cuts in half the time of a bombing run, so you could say that bombers in Astral are worth twice the value... If you want a simple nerf to the Astral, make it so, that recalled ships are frozen inside of it for a while.

And so this is also, mostly an AI problem. And as much as i would like to, i feel, like its impossible to fix the second floor, without fixing the first floor first.

10
CR matters even if your fleet is small enough that you can deploy the whole thing.
ehh.. This topic, is not about 'under limit' fighting, and thats why i wrote it like that, but okay okay, maybe i should have been more precise. Im sorry. Let me try again.
The main mechanic that CR creates is forcing rotations off/into the battlefield. But if you play under the limit, then CR is nothing but an arbitrary timer, since you wont swap a ship with 50%CR for a fresh one, for that +-5% to everything, since u dont have a fresh ship. But that is not a problem, because even if you had a bonus DP for a smaller fleet(as the topic sugests), you cant use it, since you have no ships in the back... Ye, there are few side reasons, like attrition in space, but that could be easily dumped into hull and would work the same.
Point 2 not only stands, but its stronger than i stated before, only i didnt bother to count all the reasons. What about noncombat ships for example?

But that doesnt matter really, since the deep lategame isnt implemented yet. I wrote it in the post before...

Listen, as i said, and that was the first point i made, that it would be best, if there was no limit. But that will not happen. So everything beyond that is damage control.

11
@Plantissue
I dont. But Ill bite, at least for the sake of an argument.

The issue is, that i dont think you thought this topic through.
Look, you found something that looks like a problem, and for the sake of an argument, lets say, that you are correct. But you never bothered to go one step further, and think about the implications of fixing it.

Let's see, one point at a time:
1.There has to be a limit.
Listen, It would be best, if there was no limit at all. But sadly, this is an imperfect world that has its limitations. 500 already strangles the game like hell. Maybe you could code the game to use more processing cores, but ouh boy, thats a lot of work. And this is a small project all things considered.

So if 1 = true, then:
2.You have to be able to carry more DP than you can deploy,
because if you dont, then Combat readiness is void, and should be scraped/redesigned. Ergo skill nodes that upgrade it, should be scraped/redesigned, and ship mods, and even map movement, storms, emergency burn and much more. Since alot of strings are connected to combat readiness.

So, if 1 = true and 2 = true, then:
3.There has to be a mechanism that allocates DP,
because if there isnt, and DP's are simply split in half, then there is no advantage to having a bigger fleet, ergo, you could fly with nothing but 2 Onslaughts + maybe a gryphon(100DP whole fleet), and win with multiple ordos at once, since the game isnt capable of wining with a human 1:1, and after the first wave going down, you would just camp the spawn. And also, it would be pointless to be smart on the galaxy map, and pick off fleets 1 by 1, not just run at multiple opponents bunched up.

So at the end of the day, the only thing that you could potentially do, is to come up with a different way of making a split, but is there a different way? All i can think of, is a bunch of horrible ideas that would make it even worse, like making skills, or level of the main character affect it.
Hmm, maybe you could give the player something like a bonus DP's for deploying small ships, and not capitals? But then, its only fair, if bigger fleets have the upper hand...

12
Isnt this whole topic pointless, since nobody can find any issue with nothing beyond deep-lategame, and deep-lategame isnt implemented yet?

13
i just hacked my firefox to replace every "intrinsic_parity" with "mr.Status_Quo"

14
fregates are useless in general, since there is no reason to run ships with burn over 9.

15
Suggestions / Re: a bunch of minor nitpicks
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:03:54 AM »
There's no requirement that hyperspace follows the same scale as real space. If anything, hyperspace being twisted and weird is half of the sci fi fun. Chalk it up to the solar mass pressing against hyperspace and stretching it out, or something like that. In any event it makes the nascent points inside the system much easier to target.

A good nitpick is that the transponder warning only applies to the IFF ability. Transverse jump gives no warning, and neither does going dark.
ye, you did a great job reading, try again.

Pages: [1] 2 3