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 - Jonlissla

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17
166
Suggestions / Re: All my ideas economic, empire and other
« on: May 05, 2013, 12:29:02 AM »
I'm afraid its a solid no go.  Actually, so is your idea for training scientists and researchers that you put in at the bottom.  Aside from modded in factions who may selectively defy bits of the backstory, the only "research" anyone is doing is the acquisition of Universal Access Chip's, Black Boxes with the manufacturing details of... well, apparently very nearly everything manufactured, and which are stupidly encrypted so that only the autofactories can read them.  By our standards, there are no scientists in the setting, and no research is being done, nor can it be done.  No one understands how anything works, only how to work it.

That's the most annoying thing with the lore. Even Somalia has scientists. That setting works in 40k because humans are religiously fanatical, but in a setting that has suffered a interstellar social collapse? Sure, maybe at the start, but after decades? It just breaks my immersion immediately reading this and then reading how you organized the Hegemony or Tri-Tachyon is.

Personally I hope it will be retconned in the future.

Random events

Aside from the super nova event I'd say this is pretty good list. Don't know how much of it will be implemented though.

167
Suggestions / Re: Ship ideas
« on: May 02, 2013, 10:40:06 AM »
Actually, the whole "fragile assault frigate" role is already filled - there are two phase frigates that are pretty much perfectly designed for getting in close, launching a pile of torpedos, and then running away.

The Sunder fits that role too, kind of. Fragile destroyer with massive damage output.

168
Suggestions / Re: Ship ideas
« on: May 02, 2013, 06:48:54 AM »
Yea I personally would love some more carriers that is always something that has bugged me that there are so few lower tier carriers i would like to see a dedicated carrier in the cruiser section too something to tie you over till the Astral maybe with 2 flight decks and some PD and yea I've found the hound class to be close but not quite what i was looking for in terms of my PD boat idea something in the same class but with maybe 2 forward facing torpedo's and a rear pd gun or something like that

Jesus Christ, use some punctuation, or atleast a few commas.

Quote
something that has bugged me that there are so few lower tier carriers

Can't disagree to that. A high-tech destroyer carrier wouldn't be that bad, and something else with atleast two flight decks. Right now every carrier have one flight deck only, except the Astral which goes balls to the wall with three decks.

Quote
also is there a way to change post location ?

A moderator will come along and move it.

Although i do think the Carrier-fighter relationship is kinda redundant because fighters get destroyed too easily, and that carriers, 1. have bad defenses, but i do understand its only a "support" ship, and 2. fighters arnt responsive enough to land on the deck, they tend to take too long and end up getting destroyed. I personally think that the time to landing and takeoff times as well as the responsiveness of noticing that the fighters need to dock at a carrier should be improved. Then carriers would be more effective in their role.

I agree, carriers are overall quite fine, it's the fighters that need to be looked at. There's a very good thread about them in the Suggestion forum.

169
General Discussion / Re: Is starsector still alive? Any ETA on 0.6?
« on: May 01, 2013, 02:22:48 PM »
Well it's far better than releasing crap builds that alienate people. Not saying your opinion isn't valid, just that there's plenty of reason for that "perfectionism."

You create two builds; one stable release, and a second for public testing.

Quote
Heck the fact that he's releasing builds at all is pretty awesome. Many devs will not do this. At all.

Many indie developers do this. Larger companies with a triple A budget don't need to because they have their own QA department.

170
and 1 question will there much more vanilla ships?

Most likely. The game is far away from 1.0 at the moment and there will be plenty of future art assets like stations and such. I don't see any reason as to why there shouldn't be a bunch of new ships packed there somehwere.

171
Blog Posts / Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 2
« on: April 12, 2013, 02:18:16 PM »
The new mechanics looks good, but being forced to board a random ship? Nonsense. If I want to board a Paragon with nothing more than 4 Marines in a Hound, then I should be given the choice to board that Paragon with 4 marines in a Hound. Let the player decide and not a random dice roll. It only encourages save-scumming and serves little purpose aside from annoying the player.

172
Suggestions / Re: Fighters, Carriers, and Schematics
« on: April 03, 2013, 02:30:57 PM »
Well, your "interesting tweak" would just make the problem you described worse. =p Instead of draining CR from just carriers, it would distribute the drain to 'anything with hangar space.' It would reduce the recovery time of carriers and make them even more useful, basically.

Good point, didn't think of it. Could be fixed by letting you decide if the fighter should be repaired or not so you'd have atleast some form of control over it.

Quote
There are several ways to counter-balance the increased usefulness of fighters. Reduced hull/armor/shield efficiency, higher FP cost, higher repair costs (both supply and carrier CR), CR recovery time, being destroyed (either in whole or in part) could severely reduce the fighter's own CR... there are lots of knobs to turn to balance things. It wouldn't make frigates useless since they're generally more survivable and/or have more firepower (and they'll be significantly faster next patch), and you could make fighters recover CR more slowly than frigates. Lore reason could be that the fleet has to manufacture replacement parts for the fighters rather than provide simple maintenance, and that's a lengthy process.

Hangar space could also be modified in order to give you a fighter limit of sorts, so you can't overwhelm enemies like you can do now. I like the idea now.

Would be nice to read what Alex thinks about this issue with fighters.

173
Suggestions / Re: Fighters, Carriers, and Schematics
« on: April 02, 2013, 11:22:54 PM »
In the event that a fighter wing is destroyed and you don't have a carrier with enough CR to produce a new wing, I feel that it shouldn't be permanently lost- it would just be grey'd out and undeployable until you can rebuild it.

Fighters might need some tweaking in that case, as fightercraft would become a permanent addition to the fleet. A Condor has 15 hangar space, which means he can then permanently support 5 Talons. Sure, CR would act like a resource, but there won't be any risk at all since the fighters cannot be destroyed in any way. They basically become an asset for the player that cannot be lost. Would also make frigates obsolete, although I can't say for sure because of the upcoming changes.

Edit: A interesting tweak would be that every ship with hangar space can repair fighters after combat, while carriers can so in combat instead.

174
Suggestions / Re: Fighters, Carriers, and Schematics
« on: April 02, 2013, 09:31:39 AM »
Admittedly, this just shifts the parts burden from common Supplies to uncommon weaponry.

Not to mention that it would also be time consuming, restricting and not that fun at all.

The problem as I see it with fighters is that they perform admirably against low level threats, but have difficulty fighting larger vessels and end up being destroyed 90% of these engagements. Lower the FP/credit cost on them all would only make early fights easier, and allow you to snowball pretty heavily. Even a Eagle would have a few problems with a group of 8 Talon squads.

Buffing them via stats wouldn't help either, because that would make frigates redundant.

Personally, I'd be interested in a whole new mechanic regarding fighters and carriers. A interesting example here is Star Wars: Empire at War. This great game had a different feature for Empire players; they couldn't build fightercraft at all, instead, all ships aside from corvettes had a set of fighter wings attached to them, which were then deployed when the battle started and fully repaired and replenished at the end. Their fighters were generally weaker to compensate. This mechanic could be used here, although tweaked a bit. A carrier, depending on their number of hangar bays and hangar space, could carry a set amount of fighercraft. If destroyed in battle they would be repaired and "respawned" at the carrier at a higher supply cost. You will be able to customize and assign what ships the carrier will hold, and it would be dependant on the hangar space. Let's say a Condor has 5 in HS, and Talons cost 2, and Warthogs 4. It would then be able to hold 2 Talon squads to use in combat or 1 Warthog squad.

Of course, this doesn't solve the potential issue of carriers being too vital for fightercraft.

175
Suggestions / Re: Fighters: Squadrons (paired wings)
« on: April 02, 2013, 08:53:47 AM »
Fighters just need their FP lowered, I literally made all fighters like this

That creates its own set of problems. Fightercraft is already pretty darn good against frigates, and with that change they'd steamroll everything.

176
Suggestions / Re: Graphics - What improvements are really needed?
« on: March 29, 2013, 12:36:29 AM »
A world-embedded UI: The UI is quite functional but abstract, it might be possible to implement one that makes you feel more as if you a really looking at a screen on board a ship. I have no good idea what that should look like, though.

I definately support this. The current UI is functional but it's also pretty boring in terms of aesthetics.

177
Modding / Re: Pirates Plus - expanded Vanilla Pirates
« on: March 15, 2013, 04:13:52 AM »
Absolutely great, can't see the difference between these ships and vanilla ones. You never cease to amaze me.

178
Mods / Re: Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.5)
« on: March 15, 2013, 01:10:43 AM »
Just as a question, does any body actually use photon cannons? Cause I'm thinking about replacing the non missile version in their almost entirety, lol

Not really, no. Too slow for my taste.

179
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: March 14, 2013, 02:51:25 PM »
The tactical decision now is just how much/what composition you want to deploy. You're basically betting what you think you can handle.

How does the AI handle this? I'm guessing it's just going to deploy everything, but it would be nice if it tried to conserve its own CR in case your fleet is much smaller. You know, for future battles and such.

180
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: March 14, 2013, 09:41:27 AM »
I'm just concern about enemy ships. AI is well known to be trigger happy with missiles. I hope this wont affect him much.

I find it the opposite. Pilum and Salamander missiles are obvious, but I don't see the AI waste Harpoon or Sabot missiles all that often.

Besides, I doubt this change is going to make them useless or something.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17