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.

Messages - cqsolace

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Save-Scumming as Core Game Design?
« on: May 26, 2018, 01:02:58 PM »
Ah, I understand now, thanks. I'll have to play around with being a little less loss-adverse and trying the combat-flee -> escape route rather than just reloading, as a matter of attitude shift. Looking forward to more dialogue options in the future, too!

2
General Discussion / Re: Save-Scumming as Core Game Design?
« on: May 26, 2018, 12:18:08 PM »

However, sometimes you can caught by surprise (enemy flies in off the edge of the screen and engages), and if they're hostile, 99% of the time you can't disengage.
...

Full retreat to escape a fight usually just results in them immediately re-engaging afterwards, so I might as well just reload now and save the 5 minutes of fleeing (another point of annoyance).

Hmm. Your fleet is large at that point, right? A small-enough (roughly below 150 total supplies-to-deploy) fleet can always disengage, which then means (assuming your ships manage to get away in the in-combat retreat scenario) the enemy fleet is standing down for a while and you can make an easy getaway. This is definitely unclear and that's an issue. In the next release there's a fleet-screen indicator showing whether your fleet is small enough to be able to disengage or not.


Hi Alex, thanks for your reply! I'm a bit hazy on terminology here.  So there's a few possible outcomes of being aggroed:

(a) I select 'Attempt to disengage' at the prompt that occurs and I see a result like 'The enemy fleet harasses your forces a bit, but ultimately does not pursue'. I take a small combat readiness penalty, and the enemy fleet is 'standing down' for a time, and I run away.

(b) I select 'Attempt to disengage' at the prompt, and see a result like 'The enemy fleet pursues your forces'. This triggers a combat encounter where my choices are to flee to the top of the screen, or fight. If I successfully flee, the enemy is supposed to be in a 'standing down' state, according to what you're saying, right?

When you are saying that a small-ish fleet should always be able to disengage, which scenario do you mean? I find that in most circumstances what happens is option (b), even with small fleets, but I feel like I don't observe the 'stand down' behavior, although that's possibly just down to my perception of the situation, if I even play it out that far.

3
General Discussion / Re: Save-Scumming as Core Game Design?
« on: May 26, 2018, 08:41:29 AM »
Different games have different gameplay designs. Some aren't designed around the ideal that any player can play and eventually succeed without having to face any significant loss.

To be clear, I'm not against easy difficulty modes. I like that more people can enjoy the same games that I love.

What I'm completely and irrevocably against, however, are games that cater ONLY to the least skilled denominator. Among the games I like most are those which many people would even call 'perverse' in their level of difficulty. For me, easing up the difficulty of the game often means making the game less fun for me. Games that are too easy don't interest me at all.

Anyway, I'm just saying this so that my 2cents are weighed and to politely suggest that you focus your suggestions towards the balance of the easier game modes rather than the whole game overall. I very much enjoy the volatility of the game. Roguelikes and other brutal loss features have been a favorite of mine since the days of DOS.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Sincerely recognize that many people really enjoy the feeling of something being at risk - that the ability to hide & evade your fleet, the choice of fleet composition (fast & agile, slow & beefy) is made meaningful through the real possibility of loss.

I imagine that additions around diplomacy, bribes, and general ship-to-ship interaction (outside of combat) are in the works and in the future there will be somewhat more diversity to options than just fight or flight. One way that the risk in the game could be turned into a gradient is by having the difficulty setting also affect the general charitably of other in-game agents. That is, how likely they are to accept a bribe, accept a surrender (perhaps of crew or ships as collateral), and so on. On easy difficulties, perhaps you could get away with making errors, whereas on higher difficulties, perhaps even 'normal', enemies are about as charitable as the void of space itself.


4
General Discussion / Save-Scumming as Core Game Design?
« on: May 26, 2018, 03:12:56 AM »
Hi,

I've been playing SS on and off for about 2 years now, and I  think it's pretty terrific. With that said, one of the issues I've had over time is what I consider to be a somewhat unnatural reliance on save-scumming. Save scumming is defined (by rock-paper-shotgun) as 'Where something happens in a game that you don't like as a result of your actions, and so you load an earlier save for a chance to undo it. '

As a disclaimer, and to quell any doubt in your mind whatsoever - I am not particularly good at starsector. I'm probably pretty bad. If you watched me play, you'd probably be like 'uhg, dude, why are you doing this'. So keep that in the back of your mind as you consider this criticism.

I think that starsector encourages save-scumming by giving the player insufficient routes, options, or tools to avoid complete catastrophe. These catastrophes might take a variety of forms - but the outcome is the same: you lose your entire fleet, and the game essentially ends. I also posted a vaguely similar complaint back in 2015, probably more evidence that the problem exists between keyboard and chair :)

Now, to my eyes, there's evidence that the developers have given some thought to this already, and that's why we have features such as distress beacon, range indicator (to estimate fuel), hazard warnings around some systems, and even bounty mission indicators that give you a hint if you're strong enough. This is all good stuff, particularly for people like me who would otherwise probably just do stupid stuff. I still think there's room for more improvement, and yes, that's a euphemism for me saying I'd like more hand holding, please.

The #1 way I end up having to Exit -> Continue is because I've entered an engagement that is completely unwinnable. I understand that I have 'Go Dark' to run/hide, and there's supposed to be actual risk otherwise nothing feels like it has a point. However, sometimes you can caught by surprise (enemy flies in off the edge of the screen and engages), and if they're hostile, 99% of the time you can't disengage.

I think it takes a pretty long time to build up a strong combat fleet (see disclaimer above), and so for most of the game, I'm going to be stomped by most moderate sized faction or pirate fleets. If they engage, I have to Quit -> Continue. I'm going to lose my entire fleet. There's no real half-way measure here. I can't bribe my way out, bluff, threaten retaliation via faction, there's no interaction between reputation at all beyond Friend=Disengage: Enemy=Fight. Full retreat to escape a fight usually just results in them immediately re-engaging afterwards, so I might as well just reload now and save the 5 minutes of fleeing (another point of annoyance).

There's not really any good way to gauge how strong a fleet is just by looking at the tiny sprites other than experience. However, due to the fact that the salvage yield of a small fleet is basically nil (maybe you get 5 supplies, 2 metal, w/e), I feel a real pressure to try to attack strong or borderline too-strong opponents just to get enough loot to continue affording my supplies/fuel.

To wrap up this post, here are some things that I think could help players like me:
- More options to avoid engagements that interact with other game mechanics (reputation, money/bribes, missions, and so on)
- Easier ways to gauge the relative strength of a fleet without having to get to the 'engagement' screen (at which point it's too late)
- Changes that make fleeing/retreating more of a real option, or even the ability to surrender (at some substantial cost)

Thanks for reading!

5
http://imgur.com/a/pbLlT

Mods used: Dynasector 1.3.2
Blackrock Drive Yards 0.9.0
Interstellar Imperium 1.17.2
LazyLib 2.2
Nexerelin 0.8.1b
ZZ GraphicsLib 1.2.1

The exception occured on the 3rd consecutive attempt to mine the planet (first two yielded ore). Was able to continue playing after the nullpointerexception, didn't seem to have any lasting consequences.


5907812 [Thread-5] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.shared.StarSystemActivityTracker  - Increasing system bounty probability for Nachiketa by 0.0010278489, is now 0.003810411
5907812 [Thread-5] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.shared.StarSystemActivityTracker  - Increasing system bounty probability for Nachiketa by 0.0015417733, is now 0.004966741
5908064 [Thread-5] WARN  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.A  - Problem with command of class com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.Nex_GetMiningResults: null
java.lang.NullPointerException
   at java.util.HashSet.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at exerelin.campaign.submarkets.PrismMarket.getRestrictedWeapons(PrismMarket.java:86)
   at exerelin.campaign.MiningHelperLegacy.getRandomWeapon(MiningHelperLegacy.java:558)
   at exerelin.campaign.MiningHelperLegacy.findCaches(MiningHelperLegacy.java:733)
   at exerelin.campaign.MiningHelperLegacy.getMiningResults(MiningHelperLegacy.java:810)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.Nex_GetMiningResults.execute(Nex_GetMiningResults.java:43)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.A.execute(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.rules.ooOO.runScript(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.FireBest.applyRule(FireBest.java:97)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.FireBest.execute(FireBest.java:47)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.FireBest.fire(FireBest.java:53)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.fireBes t(RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.java:176)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.init(RuleBasedInteractionDialogPluginImpl.java:88)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.OoOo.öØ0000(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.OoOo.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.ui.newui.OoOo.<init>(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignState.showInteractionDialog(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign.rulecmd.Wait$1.advance(Wait.java:115)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignEngine.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.CampaignState.advance(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.BaseGameState.traverse(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.state.AppDriver.begin(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.combat.CombatMain.main(Unknown Source)
   at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$1.run(Unknown Source)
   at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)


6
Hi guys, I'm playing starsector on ubuntu 17.04, and everything is going pretty well (mostly), but I need to increase the RAM allocated so I can use mods. However, there appears to be no 'vmparams' file as part of the linux install. How do I allocate more ram? Thanks.

7
General Discussion / Re:
« on: December 15, 2015, 10:22:19 AM »
I agree with lots of your sentiments! I think the trade system mostly just stands out like a sore thumb because the combat is just so incredibly refined and polished in contrast - but then again, the trade system is almost a placeholder (from what Alex has said), so that makes perfect sense. If only we had a time machine to jump forward to release :D

8
Modding Resources / Re: [0.7.1a] ShaderLib Beta 1.1.2 (Performance Fix!)
« on: December 13, 2015, 01:39:08 PM »
My Dell XPS-13 (Intel HD Graphics 5500) has serious graphical issues when ShaderLib Post-Processing is enabled. Artifacts, ghosting, and incorrect colors. Drivers are fully up to date. When post-processing is disabled, there are no issues. Let me know if you need more specific info (and what kind).

9
Thanks for the quick response, as always Alex. Keep up the great work :)

10
Suggestions / Rep losses for hostility unavoidable in some circumstances
« on: December 12, 2015, 02:01:39 PM »
Wasn't sure how to title this - please bear with me.

In my game, I am allied with the Hegemony, and when they were at war with The Independant, I was continuously penalized for not being "Hostile" with the Independant until I became hostile. This is fine - however, when the Hegemony declared an amistice with them, now I am being penalized for being hostile and there's no realistic way to possibly do anything about that. Consequently, I'm just going to bleed reputation. This mechanic is so strange that I honestly considered posting this as a bug. You should not be put in situations where it is impossible to avoid rep loss.

11
General Discussion / Re: Custom Resolutions
« on: December 09, 2015, 12:25:29 PM »
Works perfectly, thank you very much!

12
General Discussion / Custom Resolutions
« on: December 09, 2015, 12:07:00 PM »
Hi,

is there a way to create custom resolutions (in some config file or otherwise)? I'm hoping to have something like a 1440x1600 resolution windowed.

Thanks!

13
General Discussion / Re: 0.7 feedback
« on: December 02, 2015, 12:03:00 PM »
It really feels like the game is trying to punish the player because you are constantly being attacked by huge fleets over and over right from the start of the game. I ended up playing in windowed mode so I could "Full Retreat" and just go afk because sometimes I would have to do that 3-4 times in a row, and it takes forever to get to the edge of the map (10+minutes of doing nothing).

Quick note here: for 0.7.1a, I'd added some logic that will hopefully prune out a lot of the uneventful pursuits. If the player has ships that don't look like they can be chased down, then the enemy fleet will just "harry" instead.

That sounds great, thank you!

14
General Discussion / Re: 0.7 feedback
« on: December 02, 2015, 11:19:15 AM »
One thing I find a bit strange (as a new player) is how enemy fleets will harass/attack you even when there's no way it could possibly be worthwhile for them. For example, if I have a big fleet, it's expensive in terms of supply, combat readiness etc to engage, and I probably wouldn't attack a single pirate ship because it's totally uneconomical (in terms of salvage, time, etc). Why should the AI be any different? An enormous pirate fleet is probably not going to bother attacking a single freighter, or a shuttle, or whatever. Maybe they will deploy a single ship at best.

It really feels like the game is trying to punish the player because you are constantly being attacked by huge fleets over and over right from the start of the game. I ended up playing in windowed mode so I could "Full Retreat" and just go afk because sometimes I would have to do that 3-4 times in a row, and it takes forever to get to the edge of the map (10+minutes of doing nothing).

15
After upgrading to the new version today I'm seeing developer options in fleet engagements, and in general I have dev-only mode options everywhere.

http://imgur.com/Jr92Blz

Edit: seems to have randomly resolved itself. Very strange.

Pages: [1]