1
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.96a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: May 05, 2023, 11:22:52 AM »
To wait for mods to be updated or not to wait...
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 18, 2024, 09:43:36 PM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
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.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Suggestions / Re: Overwhelming new players
« on: November 11, 2021, 05:18:00 PM »
Sorry for necroing, but I realized I never actually returned to this thread after posting it.
I'm glad you felt that way. Like I said, I have since overcome these problems myself, but I wanted to write them down while they were still fresh in my mind. And I'm glad I did, because having just re-installed the newest version of the game and gone through the tutorials again, I did not experience them the same way a second time knowing already what to expect.
I actually didn't think the tutorial needed more information. Simply that the size your fleet, and as a consequence the size of the engagements, should probably grow a little more gradually.
With the tutorial already being optional at the start of each new save, I think it would be fair to just design it for the newcomers, and balance the start so that veterans don't need to or even be incentivized to play through it again just so it can be purely designed around the needs of a new player.
I'm personally not in favor of a "baby mode". I think the game is already very fair with letting you fail and start over again, learning in the process. The only "problem" is a new player possibly struggling early on, but coddling them to success by tweaking the values under the hood does not seem like the solution to me.
Truth be told I doubt this game will ever be the next smash hit for grandma on her iPad (no offense to any grandmothers on the forums). Not having it on major storefronts is already a deal breaking hurdle for that crowd. I would not put too many resources into trying to pander to that hypothetical crowd.
I agree wholeheartedly. I spent many hours in combat sims when starting out, and it's probably what sold me on the game. At first I felt discouraged being asked to jeopardize my fleet and economy to fight, not even being comfortable with the controls. I often felt that an experience in which I learned a lot would also punish me when it came to the strict terms of "winning" the game. That is before I fully discovered and appreciated the combat simulations. Playing extensive combat sims with each ship gave me a sense of familiarity and confidence that made me invested rather than feeling like I was getting slapped across the wrist for trying to learn.
As a side note, I don't think it should be taken for granted that this feature is there. Plenty of games don't include a similiar feature. If anything I think it should be highlighted more during the tutorial, as it truly is a crucial part of learning the game.
As it currently exists there are both. And I agree, it is a little odd. However I can see the value of handholding new players into the campaign, as I dislike when games get you invested during a long tutorial, and then scrap everything you've just worked for to have you start from the beginning after the tutorial is finished.
I think this is a good way to summarize the feeling I had when I was provoked to start this thread.
That does sound like a good (and tried and tested) way to tutorialize some concepts without dragging the game down with info dumps.
I agree that I still don't think I fully understand or at least feel comfortable with sensors or stealth (or even capable of approximating the distances on the main campaign screen despite the tooltips). In regards to the outfitting you have a legitimate concern. However I think learning how to equip your fleet might just "be the game", and trying to tutorialize proper balancing of armaments might be too complex and perhaps in part taking away from the sense of the player learning and playing the game for themselves.
---
As a side note, while we're talking about tutorials. I think the game still currently lacks any proper introduction to colonies. I understand that by the time it becomes relevant the game is way past tutorializing, but truth be told as someone who just picked up the game based on a few screenshots and never read any wikis or watched any playthroughs before playing it myself, I didn't even know that was a feature. In-game the information about it is very scarse. You're basically left to figure everything out for yourself. Which is fine to a degree, but really you're not even made familiar with the UI or the concepts that factor into colony management unless you consult third party resources which I do find problematic.
I appreciate the feedback! This in particular - overwhelming the player with too many new ships - isn't something I was thinking about, and I'll keep it in mind. That said, one of the goals of the tutorial is to introduce the idea of using junk ships that don't matter too much one way or the other - how they're outfitted, or ultimately if they even make it through the fight.
I'm glad you felt that way. Like I said, I have since overcome these problems myself, but I wanted to write them down while they were still fresh in my mind. And I'm glad I did, because having just re-installed the newest version of the game and gone through the tutorials again, I did not experience them the same way a second time knowing already what to expect.
Nevertheless, what you ask is barely possible. It is theoretically possible to fit all vital information in proper tutorial and give it to player in small pieces one by one. But that would be longest and most boring tutorial ever. And I doubt it helps.
I actually didn't think the tutorial needed more information. Simply that the size your fleet, and as a consequence the size of the engagements, should probably grow a little more gradually.
It would be "boring" to a veteran, maybe, but not a new player completely unfamiliar with the mechanics - unless the actual content of the tutorial was boring and didn't scale correctly.
With the tutorial already being optional at the start of each new save, I think it would be fair to just design it for the newcomers, and balance the start so that veterans don't need to or even be incentivized to play through it again just so it can be purely designed around the needs of a new player.
I think "easy" difficulty should really be easy, to give player time to understand how it works.
I'm personally not in favor of a "baby mode". I think the game is already very fair with letting you fail and start over again, learning in the process. The only "problem" is a new player possibly struggling early on, but coddling them to success by tweaking the values under the hood does not seem like the solution to me.
When did you last time talked to casual players? There ane no such thing as "too easy" for them. And if player thinks game is too easy - he probably not that casual and should change difficulty.
Truth be told I doubt this game will ever be the next smash hit for grandma on her iPad (no offense to any grandmothers on the forums). Not having it on major storefronts is already a deal breaking hurdle for that crowd. I would not put too many resources into trying to pander to that hypothetical crowd.
Best extended tutorial is to dive into sim from missions and not come out until you can reliably pilot whatever and beat most ships 1 size larger in duel (outside non-combat/semi-combat ships or particularly bad match-ups and preferably without relying on SO/Sabots).
I agree wholeheartedly. I spent many hours in combat sims when starting out, and it's probably what sold me on the game. At first I felt discouraged being asked to jeopardize my fleet and economy to fight, not even being comfortable with the controls. I often felt that an experience in which I learned a lot would also punish me when it came to the strict terms of "winning" the game. That is before I fully discovered and appreciated the combat simulations. Playing extensive combat sims with each ship gave me a sense of familiarity and confidence that made me invested rather than feeling like I was getting slapped across the wrist for trying to learn.
As a side note, I don't think it should be taken for granted that this feature is there. Plenty of games don't include a similiar feature. If anything I think it should be highlighted more during the tutorial, as it truly is a crucial part of learning the game.
It might be worth considering divorcing the tutorial from the game entirely, and have it as it's own self contained "module" that can be invoked from the game menu as required.
As it currently exists there are both. And I agree, it is a little odd. However I can see the value of handholding new players into the campaign, as I dislike when games get you invested during a long tutorial, and then scrap everything you've just worked for to have you start from the beginning after the tutorial is finished.
Part of the reason I think the tutorial doesn't scale well currently is the transition from a couple of frigates (and the associated costs of deployment, maintenance and hazard impact) to a moderately sized fleet right before the tutorial ends. So there is no real example for the newbie player on how this affects them until they are thrust into the "real sector."
I think this is a good way to summarize the feeling I had when I was provoked to start this thread.
I don't think there needs to be an explicit tutorial for a lot of mechanics, sometimes it is cleaner to just highlight the feedback for a mechanic the first time it occurs.
That does sound like a good (and tried and tested) way to tutorialize some concepts without dragging the game down with info dumps.
I think the two core mechanics that really need some serious tutorials are outfitting and sensors/stealth.
I suppose outfitting could be explained with warning messages like 'this load out lacks shield/armor damage' or 'this load out has high weapon flux relative to dissipation' along with suggestions in the tooltip about how to improve that (add kinetic/flux efficient damage, add HE/high damage per shot weapons, add vents or use less flux intensive weapons etc.)
I agree that I still don't think I fully understand or at least feel comfortable with sensors or stealth (or even capable of approximating the distances on the main campaign screen despite the tooltips). In regards to the outfitting you have a legitimate concern. However I think learning how to equip your fleet might just "be the game", and trying to tutorialize proper balancing of armaments might be too complex and perhaps in part taking away from the sense of the player learning and playing the game for themselves.
---
As a side note, while we're talking about tutorials. I think the game still currently lacks any proper introduction to colonies. I understand that by the time it becomes relevant the game is way past tutorializing, but truth be told as someone who just picked up the game based on a few screenshots and never read any wikis or watched any playthroughs before playing it myself, I didn't even know that was a feature. In-game the information about it is very scarse. You're basically left to figure everything out for yourself. Which is fine to a degree, but really you're not even made familiar with the UI or the concepts that factor into colony management unless you consult third party resources which I do find problematic.
3
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Common Radar v2.5b (released 2020-08-28)
« on: November 11, 2021, 04:25:31 PM »
I appreciate having the dev version and acknowledge that people develop these mods for free so beggars can't be choosers, but...
If it's possible to just change the number and have it work, and that version is already spread online and linked to this thread, why not just call that an updated version and clear up any confusion? It's listed on the mod index thread as "incompatible" when it really isn't incompatible. Maybe I'm missing something but if there is a functioning version why not just call that v2.5c or whatever and solve what seems to be just a bureaucratic issue?
If it's possible to just change the number and have it work, and that version is already spread online and linked to this thread, why not just call that an updated version and clear up any confusion? It's listed on the mod index thread as "incompatible" when it really isn't incompatible. Maybe I'm missing something but if there is a functioning version why not just call that v2.5c or whatever and solve what seems to be just a bureaucratic issue?
4
Suggestions / Re: Target planet faction alignment for bar contracts
« on: November 11, 2021, 04:08:13 PM »try reading some blog posts...
Not everyone knows about Alex's Twitter. Or maybe poika simply doesn't have time to read everything. No need to bash them.
Pointing out that someone should maybe bother to do a little research first isn't browbeating them unless they'rementally challengeddifferently abled. Which I would have no way of knowing over the internet, unless it is made patently clear. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
I think I did my due diligence using the forum search feature and reading the latest patch notes (both for the latest release and upcoming version). After all, all I did was post a suggestion thread, it's not like I filed a civil lawsuit against the devs or accuse them of misconduct. I think questioning my intelligence because I didn't also go on a social media site that I don't even have an account for (and which by default restricts you from browsing without an account) to find a specific post before posting my message is a little much.
5
Suggestions / Re: Target planet faction alignment for bar contracts
« on: November 10, 2021, 12:36:19 PM »Hi.
Currently when you're proposed a mission targeting a certain planet (starport raid, smuggling, prison break etc.) you get a text something like this:
The problem is you cannot easily see which faction the targeted planet belongs to. The only way to do this are to:
1. Have every planet memorized.
2. Back out of the dialogue, check the map, find the planet manually.
3. Accept the mission, go to intel screen, abandon quest if it's against a faction you don't want to anger.
This is literally being fixed with some new extra code in next/new update due SoonTM; try reading some blog posts... or at least the code is being added, should also affect missions like this.
That's great news if true, however I must point out that I did read the "0.95.1a (In Development) Patch Notes" up to date as of November 05, 2021 and saw nothing that seemed relevant to this issue.
6
Suggestions / Re: Target planet faction alignment for bar contracts
« on: November 10, 2021, 09:11:06 AM »
Delivery missions already have a solution for this which would work perfectly for all the mission types that don't.
7
Suggestions / Target planet faction alignment for bar contracts
« on: November 10, 2021, 08:54:29 AM »
Hi.
Currently when you're proposed a mission targeting a certain planet (starport raid, smuggling, prison break etc.) you get a text something like this:
The problem is you cannot easily see which faction the targeted planet belongs to. The only way to do this are to:
1. Have every planet memorized.
2. Back out of the dialogue, check the map, find the planet manually.
3. Accept the mission, go to intel screen, abandon quest if it's against a faction you don't want to anger.
I currently do #3 because I'm lazy, but it would be nice to have way of easily telling which faction you're supposed to attack against when accepting the mission. The information could be conveyed for example through color, wording ("Hesperus of the Luddic Church" or "the Luddic Church's warehouse on Hesperus" etc.), a tooltip on hover, an info box to the side. Anything would be fine.
Currently when you're proposed a mission targeting a certain planet (starport raid, smuggling, prison break etc.) you get a text something like this:
The problem is you cannot easily see which faction the targeted planet belongs to. The only way to do this are to:
1. Have every planet memorized.
2. Back out of the dialogue, check the map, find the planet manually.
3. Accept the mission, go to intel screen, abandon quest if it's against a faction you don't want to anger.
I currently do #3 because I'm lazy, but it would be nice to have way of easily telling which faction you're supposed to attack against when accepting the mission. The information could be conveyed for example through color, wording ("Hesperus of the Luddic Church" or "the Luddic Church's warehouse on Hesperus" etc.), a tooltip on hover, an info box to the side. Anything would be fine.
9
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Weapons Group Controls 1.1.0
« on: November 07, 2021, 10:33:51 PM »
The link to Empty Weapons Group Selector seems dead and this one hasn't been updated to 0.95a? A real shame 
10
Suggestions / Re: Keyboard shortcuts in the campaign
« on: August 21, 2020, 03:18:18 AM »Not a good idea tbh. I don't have my hands actively on the keyboard while playing the game most of the time. Typically I only do so when i'm accepting a lot of missions at once, or i'm in combat.
How does the existence of accessible keyboard hotkeys prohibit you from playing the game with just the mouse?
11
Suggestions / Re: Keyboard shortcuts in the campaign
« on: July 09, 2020, 01:53:41 AM »You realise you're replying to a person that wrote that 8 YEARS AGO? Btw necroing is against the rules.Nothing fundamental has changed in terms of rebinding keys on a system level in the past eight years. I'm not replying to the person that posted the message, I'm replying to the content of the message. I couldn't care less if he sees my reply, I'm pointing out that is this is not a sufficient solution to a problem that still persists to this day.
12
Suggestions / Re: Consistent Campaign Controls
« on: July 09, 2020, 01:48:37 AM »
I agree with OP. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be RMB or LMB that orders a move command, but it should be consistent.
They aren't just similiar concepts, they are similiar actions. While moving around the campaign the player alternates between giving "move commands" by clicking on the top-down view, and giving "move commands" by clicking on the map. The result of either is the fleet moving to the point that was clicked. It's no different than an RTS game accepting move commands either by clicking on the ground or on the minimap.
Personally I'd go with RMB as that is the key most commonly used for movement in top-down PC games, but LMB makes sense too, as the interface in most operating systems has RMB open a context menu. Like I said, I'm fine with either, but it shouldn't arbitrarily change from one screen to the next.
Fleet movement in the main view and setting course on the map are pretty different in terms of player interaction. One is a real-time control, one is a much less frequent longer-term decision. FWIW, what I think is a general "rule" type thing to get out of this - consistency is important for UI interactions for performing similar actions, but not necessarily when working with similar concepts.
They aren't just similiar concepts, they are similiar actions. While moving around the campaign the player alternates between giving "move commands" by clicking on the top-down view, and giving "move commands" by clicking on the map. The result of either is the fleet moving to the point that was clicked. It's no different than an RTS game accepting move commands either by clicking on the ground or on the minimap.
Personally I'd go with RMB as that is the key most commonly used for movement in top-down PC games, but LMB makes sense too, as the interface in most operating systems has RMB open a context menu. Like I said, I'm fine with either, but it shouldn't arbitrarily change from one screen to the next.
13
Suggestions / Re: Keyboard shortcuts in the campaign
« on: July 09, 2020, 01:35:40 AM »Well you could go into the Keyboard control panel and change keys to output other key outputs.
That would rebind the key for battles as well. For example the Q and W buttons appear to do nothing in Campaign while they're both crucial for movement in battles. The keys around WASD are the "prime real estate" of the keyboard and controls should not be stretched far away to the other side of the keyboard while these keys are unused.
Furthermore the whole discussion of what the default hotkeys should be is moot, because any PC game should have fully rebindable keys.
14
Suggestions / Re: Keyboard shortcuts in the campaign
« on: July 09, 2020, 01:27:22 AM »
I for Inventory will never be "intuitive" in any game that requires the use of a mouse. Hitting the I key with your left hand practically demands taking your eyes off the monitor and moving your entire hand. The cute alliteration wears thin real quick.
It's simply inexcusable these keys cannot be rebound.
It's simply inexcusable these keys cannot be rebound.
15
Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Common Radar v2.5 (released 2018-11-16)
« on: July 08, 2020, 08:41:35 AM »
I'm having a minor issue with the mod.
It worked fine at first. But after I played around with the config settings to customize the combat radar the blackground became completely transparent. There is no background at all regardless of what values I put in for radarUIAlpha or radarBackgroundAlpha.
I changed the settings back, I replaced the config file with the original, I reinstalled the entire mod. All the other settings reverted, but the background simply isn't there. Also the white lines on the CR and Battle progress bars disappeared. I don't mind since I turned those off anyway but just something I noticed after I restored the settings to default.
My mod list is Autosave, Combat analytics, Combat chatter, Console commands, LazyLib, Version Checker, Weapons Group Controls and GraphicsLib but I had all those installed when I first started tinkering with the radar mod configs.
It's probably not a problem with the mod since it worked correctly at first but what could I try to fix it?
It worked fine at first. But after I played around with the config settings to customize the combat radar the blackground became completely transparent. There is no background at all regardless of what values I put in for radarUIAlpha or radarBackgroundAlpha.
I changed the settings back, I replaced the config file with the original, I reinstalled the entire mod. All the other settings reverted, but the background simply isn't there. Also the white lines on the CR and Battle progress bars disappeared. I don't mind since I turned those off anyway but just something I noticed after I restored the settings to default.
My mod list is Autosave, Combat analytics, Combat chatter, Console commands, LazyLib, Version Checker, Weapons Group Controls and GraphicsLib but I had all those installed when I first started tinkering with the radar mod configs.
It's probably not a problem with the mod since it worked correctly at first but what could I try to fix it?
Pages: [1] 2