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.

226

General Discussion / Re: Changing ships before battle.

« on: June 29, 2012, 12:04:13 PM »

I have been playing this game for a while now and i still dont know how to change my flagship before battle starts

You can change it in the fleet screen during travel, or while ingame, you can select a ship and then choose Transfer Command or something like that.

227

General Discussion / Re: Talons - surprisingly useful

« on: June 23, 2012, 06:31:59 AM »

Talons are surprisingly useful, no doubt about that. I use them consistently early at the game where they can put a real dent in those smaller pirate fleets. A Condor, bit of supplies, and you're all set. Even if you lose a squadron they're very easy to replace, and they're nasty when used in groups.

228

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: June 12, 2012, 03:29:26 PM »

If everything is special than nothing is! Sometimes you have to have a few less-than-ideal ships - 'sides the Buffalo has decent cargo capacity and can be sold for a good amount when full repaired.

It's a kind of a bad sign if this is the best thing about a ship.  

How shall I put it... it's not a good ship, and it's not supposed to be. When character skills and such come in, you might be able to make something presentable out of it, and it could make a reasonable short-term stop on your way to something better. With how the campaign works *now*, with the lack of character skills and the ease of acquiring better ships, it's simply never going to be all that useful.

If you do have abilities/skills/perks/something that enhanches it, won't these buffs be for all or for specific ship sizes? Right now I'm speculating since these things have not yet been implemented yet, but shouldn't that make every other ship even more attractive compared to the Buffalo?

Some ships are just flat out worse than others, and this is ok.

Absolutely, when it is justified in cost. Talon squadrons are among the weakest ships in the game, but they're brutally cheap and expandable. I completely understand that not every ship is supposed to tackle a Paragon 1vs1, but every ship has a role of some sorts. The Buffalo has nothing really redeemable about it, it's like a flying kinder egg just waiting to be smashed apart and eaten by the player... and its toy being sold to a trader.

My point is, it lacks a role, it lacks a purpose. If it does have a role or purpose and if that is to either be sold at stations or used as target practice, there are perhaps better ways of doing it. Why not let it retain some of its cargospace or fuel capacity, make it a more heavily armed transport instead?

229

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: June 12, 2012, 02:00:41 PM »

... especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?

The top speed is 80 now - not great, but no longer horrible. It's still not a good ship, and really isn't supposed to be one.

It's less than mediocre, every other combat ship in the game outperforms it in every way. Speed buff, great, flare system, even better, but if you yourself say that it's still not a good ship then why have it in the game? Variety is always good, no doubt about that, and every ship has its place but for the Buffalo that place happens to be on the scrapyard. Have you considered turning it into a pure missile platform instead? That small energy mount at its front is rather misplaced so it could be switched for something else.

I just want it to have a role that doesn't involve rushing to a station and getting rid of the damn thing as fast as possible.

230

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.53a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: June 12, 2012, 02:24:23 AM »

I suspect that with a bit of creativity, the could be used to create hulls that transform into a somewhat different shape You can also make it alter ship stats in any way you want while drones are deployed (as the Apogee's Sensor Drones do).

Siege Mode = ACTIVATED

Overall, the changes looks great. Now every ship has something unique to them, which is problably going to make those lesser ships being used more, especially the Buffalo MK2. Jesus Christ, it's about time it got a buff. Mind telling us how much more speed and manueverability it recieved?

231

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

« on: May 19, 2012, 11:17:10 AM »

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

I think you misunderstood, what I'm talking about is not the setting nor the ship design, but the colour scheme of the RSA.

232

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

« on: May 19, 2012, 04:30:21 AM »

Looks great, although I think the RSF ships are way too dark. The red colour creates a fine contrast but all those grey bolts in combination with the pitch black makes it look a bit messy. Have you tried another colour scheme?

ISA ships however looks incredibly clean and very professionally made. Kudos to you.

233

General Discussion / Re: Do you scum-save?

« on: May 16, 2012, 05:30:39 AM »

I wouldn't if you could repurchase ships, taking a money hit is one thing but when you lose a ship that simply doesnt exist anywhere and is never for sale again, it gets boring as heck.

Have to admit that I feel the same. It's one thing to lose money and perhaps a bit of equipment and cheap ship, but losing a cruiser or a capital ship is a huge setback. Being able to insure your ships would be pretty sweet, altough considering the lore I doubt that will ever happen.

234

General Discussion / Re: What would you like Alex to implement in 0.53 (or to focus on)?

« on: May 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM »

Oh yeah, also, I'm very excited about it

Oh gosh, what a tease.

My bet is on the RPG elements and that little Outpost button.

235

General Discussion / Re: is the buffalo usable?

« on: May 12, 2012, 09:00:10 AM »

but it really hurts to lose one!

Only if you bought one, which I doubt anyone does.

It'd actually be useful if it had a shield. I'd trade the medium missile slot for a shield.

It could survive just fine without the shield if it had some proper armour, hull integrity and perhaps more sensible weapon slots. It feels very random at the moment.

236

General Discussion / Re: is the buffalo usable?

« on: May 12, 2012, 03:54:30 AM »

Though why it has no sheilds, unlike the cargo transporter is a mystery.

Problably to make room for all the missile slots.

I think we need to realise that the Buffalo MK2 is a modified CARGO ship, thus the terrible ship design.

Works in lore, sure, but.... doesn't work as well in gameplay. Right now it's a one-trick pony with very limited amount of "viable" weapon loadouts. It really needs a buff if it wants to be useful.

237

General Discussion / Re: is the buffalo usable?

« on: May 12, 2012, 01:00:22 AM »

Keep in mind that the game will have rpg elements soon.  There needs to be some "low level", for lack of a better term, so the player has something to fight out of the box.

Every ship has a sort of redeeming factor, something that makes them useful even in later and larger engagements. Talons are fast, cheap, accessable, and act great as a nuisance when you have a carrier to support them. Many scoffed at the Hound but ever since the last AI update they've become very useful in harassing, especially if you have more than one.

For the Buffalo though, I can't say it has any advantage except being target practice and perhaps the odd experimental design. I admit that I've used them many times early in the game as fire support (and still do) and this is a job they can do relatively well, but once you get into the lategame they become incredibly mediocre, where even the Talon has something useful to bring to the field.

In short, I don't think the Buffalo is a useless ship -- it just needs a little love and customized weapons loadouts to perform well.

It needs a buff, no doubt, but if a ship requires very specific weapon loadouts in order to actually perform somewhat useful, then I'd go ahead and say that the ship is broken in terms of design.

I will try out those loadouts you mentioned though and see how it goes. Going to be very interesting.

238

General Discussion / Re: is the buffalo usable?

« on: May 11, 2012, 06:52:43 AM »

has anyone found any way to use a buffalo other than chucking it at the closest station and get the money?

To summarize all the posts done so far in the thread I guess the answer is no. Personally I think it should be renamed to the "Buffalol" since I have a hard time to resist laughter when I see it.

239

Modding / Re: My Ship Sprite (wip)

« on: May 08, 2012, 07:48:58 AM »

for the destroyer sized i was thinking 3 medium missile w/ 6-12 small balistic, energy mix
2 flight decks that hold up to 15 a peice
180 degree shield with an average rating
&  decent rated armor
With a larger cargo space (for its class)

Whoa, with those stats it's problably more fitting as a cruiser than a destroyer.

240

General Discussion / Re: Are high-tech ships less subjective to boarding?

« on: May 08, 2012, 07:46:06 AM »

They do nothing if you hit shield or armor, but do huge crew damage if you hit the exposed hull.

Might get annoying as hell though when the AI uses them. To be more precive, it might get to be expensive as hell.

It's a cool idea however, I admit.