Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

196

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.8 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: September 05, 2012, 12:23:28 AM »

So its up to you, guys. If you wish an update - it will be ready today eve. If you wish descriptions - those are gonna delay the update

Descriptions can be added later. It's not exactly a priority one issue to be honest, it's more of a nice touch.

197

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.8 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: September 04, 2012, 09:04:27 AM »

What kind of descriptions you `d like to see for ships? I`m surely not the best writer out there and i wont write as much text as Alex did (the count of ships currently in game makes it difficult to write stories about each). But i feel that simple "created in.. best used.. role.. etc." might not be enough.

Quite the contrary, that would definately be enough for the moment. There's no need to fill a few pages of several paragraphs of lore, but a few sentences about the ship and its purpose and design would be good. Something to give the player a sort of idea of what the ship is for.

198

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.8 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: September 04, 2012, 07:25:53 AM »

The new sprites look great. Will you add ship descriptions in the new version? Feels rather empty without them when you're looking over the ships.

199

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.8 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: September 01, 2012, 01:23:10 AM »

Should i also remake ISA? I can`t figure out if this is needed. They have a different light orientation (left->right) while all new ships are mirrored.

I don't really think it's needed. Right now each faction has a distinct artstyle and colour scheme so they all become unique. The RSF update should be enough in my opinion.

200

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.8 (0.53.1a with campaign)

« on: August 31, 2012, 02:00:38 PM »

The updated sprites fits much more better now compared to before. I'm really impressed by your work, it's very well done.

201

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.6 (0.52a with campaign)

« on: August 30, 2012, 01:00:08 PM »

I`ll release the new version as soon as i finish RSF ships.

Wait a minute....

Crude and plated Ironclads VS clean and light high-tech ships. Nothing is going to be changed here.

 

202

Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 2.6 (0.52a with campaign)

« on: August 24, 2012, 01:25:01 PM »

Am I missing something or is the RSF getting a new colour scheme? Difficult to keep up with the thread since it's about 40 pages soon.

Good job on the sprites, they're really good. I have noticed you haven't added any descriptions for the ships yet though.

203

General Discussion / Re: Your fantasy on campaign

« on: August 20, 2012, 08:36:08 AM »

essentially X without jumpgates and 2-d with (IMO) a better combat system

this is pretty much what i thought of as well.

I'm getting slight nightmares from all the micromanagement you had to do in order to tell a single ship to follow you without resorting to mods which added hotkeys, and then realising you had forgotten to equip the damn ship.

Jesus Christ, how horrifying.

204

General Discussion / Re: Your fantasy on campaign

« on: August 20, 2012, 08:13:43 AM »

fake market fluctuations for trading (good luck actually simulating that in singleplayer)

I don't think that's necesserily needed in the game. Having a supply and demand system works just fine.

Multiple fleets with AI orders like defend my base, go mine those asteroids, follow my fleet, etc...

Could get rather awkward with the current system where combat between AI fleets are determined immediately. If it took time for them to duke it out and having dynamic losses it would open up a lot of options for the player, like aiding a certain faction or helping out a local trader if they're attacked by pirates.

So question is: how would YOU like the campaign to be reguardless of what Alex is actually going to make.

I think you've covered most of it. Player owned bases and structures, being able to remotely command fleets and mining operations, creating trade fleets to do certain trading runs for you alá Port Royale. As long as the game is not entirely focused on combat I'm happy.

205

General Discussion / Re: Fighters

« on: August 19, 2012, 11:59:00 PM »

My mistake, I was mixing up the wing counts with the Gladius.  Still, even at three to a squad, they just aren't worth that outrageous fleet cost.  It's really hard to justify spending 10 FP on a fighter wing when the unit itself has significant limitations and another 2 points gets you a midline destroyer.

Indeed, the main faults I've seen so far with them is the FP cost and speed. If you would lower the cost to 8 FP and give it a speed of 110-120 instead of 80 I think they would be worth a slot. Of course, then we have that insane repair cost as well.

What do people think of the Torpedo Bombers?  For 5 points they can put a pretty big dent into things...but then again, for 5 points I could just load up a Lasher with Atropos Racks and missile upgrades.

To be perfectly honest, I've never used them. In fact, I don't use bombers at all, not even Piranha wings. It's not that I think they're bad since I've been on the recieveing end of their bomb bays many times, but by the time they become useful to me I have already gotten a Destroyer or Cruiser to do their job. Should problably learn to use them more often though.

however, at some point you will reach a stage where it would be more beneficial to replace ships with fighters due to the fact that those ships are barely contributing to the fights either because they can't get there or the field is so saturated that they are taking more time maneuvering than they are shooting.

True, fightercraft don't have to worry about collisions which is one of the reasons they're so effective. However, due to their short range they will always have to get into melee, which is right in range of PD systems. This isn't really that big of problem though since the majority have such a high speed that when they get into too much trouble they can always fly away to the nearest carrier and repair and rearm. A nice luxury which I believe the Warthogs can't use to their fullest potential.

EDIT: basically what i said here, which is getting ignored for w/e reason: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=3919.msg61338#msg61338

But it wasn't ignored? The same advantages that you gave the Warthog can be given to any other fighter in the game, which made me reply with the comparison with the Broadsword. Sorry if I was being unclear.

206

General Discussion / Re: Fighters

« on: August 19, 2012, 10:11:14 AM »

Warthogs have 6 light mgs and 3 light assault guns in 1 wing - way more than lashers 3 lmgs and 2 lags plus they can rearm and repair.

I think you disregarded that Lashers can also carry 2 small missile launchers, have Acc. Ammo Feeder, 20 more in speed and costs half as much as Warthogs do.  It's true that Lashers cannot repair in combat, but I've noticed that while they are a bigger target they do have more surviveability thanks to their shield and extra speed.

207

General Discussion / Re: Fighters

« on: August 19, 2012, 06:32:53 AM »

why spend 12 FP to do a suboptimal job?

But they're not doing a suboptimal job? Broadswords might lack LAGs but instead they get Swarmers which can put a equal dent into larger ships and allows them to combat other fighters. They're much faster, cheaper, and they only have a total of 75 less armour. I don't think Warthogs are worth 10 FP at the current moment, atleast not with 80 in speed.

208

General Discussion / Re: Fighters

« on: August 19, 2012, 02:26:19 AM »

IMO: these advantages justify it's 10 FP cost. 6 FP is just silly OP since it's a literal stack of death that can overload shields in no time so the escorted cruiser / destroyer can just pummel it, thus changing it's role from supplementary firepower to primary firepower.

Warthogs are almost half as fast as Broadswords, and the only difference is a total of 75 armour and having LAGs instead of Swarmer missiles. They cost almost twice as much in FP and have a homungous supply cost to repair and rearm. As if stands now, I don't see any reason to get Warthogs at all when you can get two Broadswords to do its job, despite being armed with LAGs.

209

General Discussion / Re: Fighters

« on: August 18, 2012, 01:51:01 PM »

Thunders took a huge hit losing a fighter. The loss of survivability has impacted nastily.

Most midline fighters are kind of mediocre if you ask me. Warthogs are way too expensive and slow while Gladii (Gladiuses?) are just as vulnerable as Thunders are, and will instantly die the moment you fart in their general direction.

I used to be able to field nothing but Thunder wings, and they'd take down every ship in the game. Now they die so easily...

R.I.P. Thunder Supremacy

Yeah, they were kind of broken. Fun while it lasted though.

210

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Pc Issues with game / Refund

« on: August 16, 2012, 05:56:34 AM »

Hello,
I've recently been trying to run Starfarer and its just not running anymore. I have no clue why. I've had a few problems in the past but there were fixed. Now I just give up, Is there any possible way I could get a refund?

It's VERY difficult, if not impossible, for anyone of us to help when you haven't really described the problem. A good example would be if you came to a mechanic and said; "My car is not working anymore, what's wrong with it?". Pretty difficult to answer that question, don't you agree?

First off, what's actually happening? Does the game crash when you try to load it, and if, are you using mods? Have you done a clean install or updated anything recently before this problem occurred?