16
Suggestions / Re: Allow cancelling of Interdictor Pulse.
« on: June 19, 2017, 12:40:05 AM »
Maybe make it so that you need to hold the button and keep it pressed for it to charge up?
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 24, 2024, 05:14:27 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.
17
Suggestions / Re: Hyperspace Currents
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:48:31 PM »
I believe Alex discussed that in a blog post:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2015/09/20/hyper-terrain/#more-2452
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2015/09/20/hyper-terrain/#more-2452
18
General Discussion / Re: Are campaign controls good enough for actiony gameplay?
« on: June 05, 2017, 12:16:01 AM »
I made a suggestion for a "full stop" button a year ago:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=10752.0
In my mind it would just be a button right below "resume course" with appropriate hot key
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=10752.0
In my mind it would just be a button right below "resume course" with appropriate hot key
19
General Discussion / Re: Why MUST we play the tutorial first?
« on: May 15, 2017, 07:05:04 PM »
Guess we'll have to cater to people who would give a negative review because of forced tutorial now.
That said, I did expect the then-non-existant campaign tutorial to be in its separate tab, in an independent map, explain game mechanics in a more out-of-universe tone, and end as soon as it's done its job. The current tied-in introductory quest is nice, but the above-mentioned method is also an option.
I guess it would also be the preferred method comes outpost - no reason to gift an outpost just because.
What we lack here is newcomer's perspective. Do they find the tutorial in its current form obstructive?
That said, I did expect the then-non-existant campaign tutorial to be in its separate tab, in an independent map, explain game mechanics in a more out-of-universe tone, and end as soon as it's done its job. The current tied-in introductory quest is nice, but the above-mentioned method is also an option.
I guess it would also be the preferred method comes outpost - no reason to gift an outpost just because.
What we lack here is newcomer's perspective. Do they find the tutorial in its current form obstructive?
20
General Discussion / Re: Why MUST we play the tutorial first?
« on: May 14, 2017, 10:08:42 PM »
I don't Admire Alex or his team, I admire their works. I don't just want Starsector to be how I want it to be, I want it to become many more people's favourite game. My opinion as a consumer is that Alex's prescribed gameplay is right on the track. I'd like to see SS reach out and be accessed by more people, I'd like to see them having as much enjoyment as we had.
It's not capitalism, it's not altruism, it's about wanting the good game that we have right now to be successful as it deserve.
It's not capitalism, it's not altruism, it's about wanting the good game that we have right now to be successful as it deserve.
21
General Discussion / Re: Why MUST we play the tutorial first?
« on: May 14, 2017, 10:52:06 AM »
Whether SS goes on Steam is besides the point... What Alex have done is to make sure new players can get into this huge and deep game easier and faster via a short segment of guided gameplay. WE got nothing to lose here (quite a nice head start on the contrary)... Does this thing (that you've already passed) really bother you this much?
Even that segment is as good quality as the rest of the gameplay.... Have you guys even read the well-writen conversation? And the final fight... it was a well-balanced challenge to both the ability to maneuver in the campaign map and in-combat fighting prowess. Even here the SS dev team made no compromise!
Or are we going back to wall-of-text Manual?
That said, some written material would be nice, especially that it seems a lot of information is buried deep within blog posts and patch notes....
Even that segment is as good quality as the rest of the gameplay.... Have you guys even read the well-writen conversation? And the final fight... it was a well-balanced challenge to both the ability to maneuver in the campaign map and in-combat fighting prowess. Even here the SS dev team made no compromise!
Or are we going back to wall-of-text Manual?
That said, some written material would be nice, especially that it seems a lot of information is buried deep within blog posts and patch notes....
22
General Discussion / Re: Why MUST we play the tutorial first?
« on: May 14, 2017, 04:51:04 AM »
In fact I enjoyed the tutorial quite a lot because I think it enriched the lore of Starsector somewhat - a glimse into how the Hegemony operate and how "flexible" they are at times... I'd love to see more of it.
So I think the worst mistake Alex made here is calling it a "tutorial". If it was called something like "an induction to the Sector" I think our veterans here would feel better.
I believe It's a matter of presentation.
So I think the worst mistake Alex made here is calling it a "tutorial". If it was called something like "an induction to the Sector" I think our veterans here would feel better.
I believe It's a matter of presentation.
23
General Discussion / Re: Why MUST we play the tutorial first?
« on: May 12, 2017, 10:17:22 PM »Hmm.... Suppose people are allowed to skip the tutorial.... Real people know how things go, they skipped the tutorial and are surviving in the sector just fine. "Fake" people on the other hand get overwhelmed, maybe they have problem navigating, maybe they forget about supplies/CR, anyway they died to what "real" people consider "stupid mistake/basic knowledge" . That leave a bad taste in their mouth, they leave a negative review, or claimed a refund, or both.It's pretty much a known fact that people - especially the people you really don't want doing it - will skip tutorials if they are skippable. "This is why we can't have nice things" etc etc. So: unskippable tutorial, but trivial to bypass if you've played before (start game, exit, start another game). Apologies for the inconvenience.
Starsector is not a national tax code or a firearm, so question: Who cares about those people? It can't be a matter of money, or you'd be in a different business rather than developing one indie game for 6 years. Perhaps in general avoid making design compromises for hypothetical, incredibly limited customers on steam; cater to the customers who've actually paid 15$ for the game before it even finished.
Real people should be allowed to skip the tutorial, even if it's the first time they downloaded and opened the app.
So no, from a certain point of view it IS a matter of money. I think what Alex did is a sound business practice, beneficial to his mental health even.
24
Bug Reports & Support / [0.8a-RC19] Sustained burn quick turn trick
« on: April 26, 2017, 06:30:36 AM »
Found a way to perform U-turn without recharging sustained burn while also avoiding the handling penalty of the ability.
1. pause the game
2. change course
3. deactivate sustained burn
4. reactivate sustained burn
5. unpause the game
keep? remove?
1. pause the game
2. change course
3. deactivate sustained burn
4. reactivate sustained burn
5. unpause the game
keep? remove?
25
General Discussion / Re: The Mora
« on: April 22, 2017, 09:17:53 PM »
Relax, it's all part of the testing/balancing scheme. If it's too weak nobody will use it and test it.
Let me quote David Sirlin's essay on game balancing:
Let me quote David Sirlin's essay on game balancing:
Spoiler
Quote
The other psychological effect to know about is what happens when you increase a move’s power. I learned about this Rob Pardo’s lecture on balancing multiplayer games at the Game Developer’s Conference, and I tried it on all the games I balanced, and I think Rob is right. He said that if you have a move that you’re not really sure how to balance, make it too powerful. If you make it too weak, then you run the risk of no one using it at all. Then, when you slightly increase its power, none of the testers will notice or care. They already decided that move is weak. Then if you make it slightly more powerful still, they still won’t care. Even when you inch it up past the reasonable level of power, it’s hard to get it on people’s radar and that makes it really hard to know how to tune the move.
Full essay here
[close]
26
Blog Posts / Re: Ship Recovery
« on: January 21, 2017, 08:18:41 AM »
That's really innovative, can't wait to play it!
27
General Discussion / Re: Anyone have .5a RC3?
« on: January 19, 2017, 04:46:33 AM »
I have these window installers:
28
Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: September 02, 2016, 01:29:14 AM »
I wholeheartedly agree with Embolism. If they don't at least cost a portion of the cargo space, I'd rather not have such hullmod at all.
Destroyers/Freighters can launch shuttles, sure. Launching *wings of* "shuttles", refueling/rearming them, not to mention rebuilding and assembly during combat situation? That's a completely different story.
Let's try to answer this question: Can the Tarsus-Condor conversion be performed in deep space? The conversion is so extensive that they shaped differently. If similar operation can be done on other ships by *just adding a hullmod* then the answer would be "Yes, if the fleet is willing to take a hit in CR" I suppose?
Destroyers/Freighters can launch shuttles, sure. Launching *wings of* "shuttles", refueling/rearming them, not to mention rebuilding and assembly during combat situation? That's a completely different story.
Let's try to answer this question: Can the Tarsus-Condor conversion be performed in deep space? The conversion is so extensive that they shaped differently. If similar operation can be done on other ships by *just adding a hullmod* then the answer would be "Yes, if the fleet is willing to take a hit in CR" I suppose?
29
Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 30, 2016, 10:25:48 PM »...For me it's an entirely different story. I think the new system means less micromanagement.
I absolutely understand a lot of this is going to be subjective. For sure, I haven't played your new mechanics and they could be great! But at the same time, they could just be going in a direction that I'm not really looking for.
When I'm playing a carrier, the idea is that I'm the conductor of a giant space orchestra. Flying the carrier is a lot more about predicting where I should be in the future while directing the action around the carrier (which means I spec a lot into the leadership skills). I use the carrier itself as an anchor of sorts for the front line. In many ways, the carrier and escorts is the anvil , and the fighters, bombers, and other ships of the fleet are the hammer.
When I say micromanagement, I'm kind of thinking that I'm now having to dance between 2 different systems. Managing the fleet in the map, and now managing the fighters separately with what's basically a hold-fire auto-fire command, as well as using the missiles/harassment/support weapon systems I generally try to run on the carrier. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the allure of flying the carrier was not as much about the carrier itself, but it's interactions with the entire battle.
....
Even right now it's possible to have very tight control over how fighters/bombers behave. I can control when they refit with "rally carrier", make them flank by putting a "rally strike force" assignment sideways of a target before placing a "strike" assignment on it.
The problem is that it's very inflexible. Situations change constantly and you have to keep moving your assignment (meanwhile burning a lot of command points). You have to keep checking the tactical map and that divert a lot of attention from the action, not to mention most often I just forget about it altogether, leaving them too far away from the battle.
It would be clean and neat if I could control fighters simply by ordering the carrier itself. It may also be safer to the carrier itself as it's no longer tethered to a way point and knows to fall back as needed.
By the way, would we be seeing new, fighter-centric combat skills? With the fighter redesign it seems way easier to buff them with skills/hullmods.
30
General Discussion / Re: 4 years....
« on: May 11, 2016, 10:30:22 AM »
How about just let Alex focus on making the game instead of dealing with distractions like this and then maybe we would get to play the full game sooner? Since when does Alex disappoint you, with his brilliant game design concepts and prompt response to bug reports? The way I see it, the long development of Starsector is not a sign of Alex taking his time or slacking, but that he makes no compromise in the quality of his creation!