Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - naufrago

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
16
General Discussion / Re: Ballistic weapons generating Flux?
« on: July 30, 2013, 01:40:31 PM »
I tend to refer to sci-fi tech-y shenanigans as 'space magic'. Because as the saying goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

17
Suggestions / Re: Phase Ships... this may help
« on: July 29, 2013, 11:23:36 PM »
I do agree that phase ships seem a little weak... I have another idea. It's 2am, though, so there's a decent chance it's a terrible idea with consequences I'm not properly considering.

Would it be unbalanced if phase ships could fire while cloaked? They already generate hard flux at a constant rate, which hinders their flux dissipation, so they wouldn't be able to sustain fire for terribly long. They'd have to be super careful not to overload themselves while doing so. It could be annoying to try to kill one, but it just means you have to bring something that can catch em.

Having trouble thinking of arguments against it, but I'm quite sleepy.

EDIT: Just thought of what would happen if they could fire missiles, torpedos, AM blasters, and bombs while cloaked. Probably a terrible idea. So maybe just allow anything but strike weapons/missiles?

18
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: July 28, 2013, 05:48:50 PM »
Right; it's just the star's gravity well that requires high skill. Other points don't. I'd imagine a star system only accessible through its star's gravity well would make for a pretty good hideout, though. Assuming there's actually a way out!

I feel that if you can enter a system, there should be a way to leave it. It would really, really suck to be exploring and encounter an inescapable death trap like that. I have a strong aversion to losing things due to circumstances outside my control. Even if the only way out were an emergency jump that comes with a HUGE hit to your CR (like a flat 30-50% or so) and significant hull damage (anywhere from 10-99% of your current hp), that would be preferable to a game over for something so silly.

19
Blog Posts / Re: Hyperspace
« on: July 26, 2013, 11:28:07 AM »
Right, that's sort of what I was referring to when talking about distress calls. I don't know about guaranteeing a refueling fleet, though. The feel of that doesn't mesh with how I see the Sector - that kind of safety net implies a level of organization well beyond what's there. Maybe deep in Hegemony space; certainly not while exploring somewhere. A fuel "delivery" via a pirate fleet coming in weapons hot seems more in character. As does an eventual "game over" screen if noone answers your call.

As to gradually getting fuel for free... it's a possibility, but that sounds pretty tricky to get right in terms of the OP cost. I'm also not sure that I like the idea of an exploration fleet being self-sufficient in fuel. To me, that could well kill the feel of exploration by eliminating one of the major risks.

As other people mentioned, you could make it a bit like Escape Velocity (the original 2, at least) where the fuel generation is very slow (rather than nonexistent) if you have the appropriate item fitted on your ship. The time you spend waiting to generate enough fuel for a jump is punishing enough that you definitely don't want to get stranded if you can help it, and the fuel scoop uses up valuable space that could be used for more weapons/other stuff, but it gives you a safety net if you find yourself stranded for whatever reason.

If you make it a hullmod, it could generate a % of how much fuel it needs to jump 1ly per second, so it will always take a set amount of time before you can get back into hyperspace. Maybe make it so that it would take 1-2 weeks in-game time to generate enough fuel to get to the nearest star system, on average (would probably need some fine-tuning since you don't have distances nailed down yet). As for the OP cost, I'd say a significant % of its OP (maybe 30%?) would have to be dedicated to the process. That way it's something that you'd only want to install in an emergency.

If you make the wait time punishing enough, you also greatly increase the risk of running out of supplies. You could even make the process consume extra supplies (and maybe make the wait time shorter than I suggested). The conversion of supplies to fuel could be grossly inefficient, sort of like how scrapping a ship is probably less than ideal.

I feel that you could make the generation of fuel in a pinch punishing enough that it's not something you'd want unless you're desperate. In fact, making it a tradeoff between supplies and time seems like the best bet of making it work. Do I try to spend time and supplies to scrape together enough fuel to get to the nearest star system (potentially risking an accident if I run out of supplies), or do I try to consume a minimum of supplies and hope another fleet appears that can rescue me?

My thoughts:  there was a mechanic in Escape Velocity (IIRC), where if one ran out of fuel, one could make a hyperspace call for help if one had the credits, eventually getting a fuel tanker sent your way.  If you were out of credits, you died, with an explanation about drifting through space because you ran out of fuel and couldn't afford a tanker (i.e., telling players why their choice didn't work- this meant that from then on, players kept a minimal balance of credits to cover that dire necessity).

This is both realistic and a good way to prevent this kind of feature from becoming a major game-balance hassle.

If players have a billion credits and want to fly their giant fleet across the wide empty spaces of the galaxy, calling for fuel tankers at phenomenal costs (say, raise the price depending on how far you are from a solar system) ... I'd honestly say that it's both more realistic and more likely to be Fun to let them, rather than force them to build the All-Tanker Fleet.  If the price scaling was really reasonable, it'd also be a gentle landing pad for newbies figuring out the mechanics.

[EDIT]Also... since I know that we'll all want to mod it in (and it'll be popular, because it will provide a gentler mechanic) I'd strongly suggest having a Hull Mod that generates Fuel over time.  If Fuel's handled as a float internally, then Fuel generation / day can be helpful.  I'd also suggest having a Hull Mod that allows trading Fuel for Supplies over time.  Both would eat a medium-largish OP amount and be an effect that got more efficient with larger hulls.

This would, if set up correctly, allow for fleets with very long-range traveling capabilities, even indefinite ones, in exchange for significant reduction of their combat effectiveness.  Sounds like an exploration fleet to me.  The something-for-nothing can be explained away by lore- "Giant p-space interstitial meshes project Infernium-capturing field effects, allowing fleets to gather the minute amounts of Infernium that drift between the stars"... or whatnot.[/EDIT]
that's not entirely how i remember Escape Velocity.  I believe you always had a chance to hail the next passing ship in attempts to buy fuel from them.  I don't remember the game ever ending because you ran out of fuel?  Also, you could board ships and steal their fuel if you wanted to pick a fight.  I assume there will still be a chance of picking up fuel in Starsector after every battle?  Either way, that is why buying the 'ramscoop' was always one my first purchases ikn EV, to slowly recover fuel over time, and wouldn't mind something like that in Starsector.
Also, props for the mention of 'Ares' in this thread.  EV and Ares... aahhhh... the games of my rotten youth.  And it's that itch that Starsector strangly scratches for me.
Ok, enough nitpicking and reminiscing on my part.  i love learning where Starsector is heading and i love playing it much more!  (back to lurking...)

Growing up, I thought I was the only person who ever played those games. Glad to know I'm not the only person out there who loves EV and Ares.

20
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: July 12, 2013, 05:10:12 PM »
I plan to hold my questions for now. Right now we know barely anything, which means the questions we'd be asking at this point will most likely be explained in the upcoming blog post on the subject. Once we have a better understanding of how it will work, we can ask better, informed questions to fill in the gaps.

21
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: July 11, 2013, 11:05:26 PM »
Just read the latest patch notes. The news about multiple systems is a nice surprise. Hoping we'll be able to test it out soon!

22
Discussions / Re: Hidden guest
« on: July 09, 2013, 10:16:51 PM »
It's the NSA loggin' your keys.

23
Suggestions / Re: Warship Gunner Esque Modification System
« on: July 09, 2013, 07:27:39 PM »
I like the idea, seems like it would be fun to have in a game like this, but it doesn't really match up with the lore of the game. The people in the sector don't know the science behind the ships they produce; they're reliant on whatever blueprints they can find. Good luck trying to customize a ship from scratch without any understanding of what needs to go into making it. =p

24
General Discussion / Re: 1.6 Patch
« on: July 09, 2013, 07:13:07 PM »
I like the mid-game, personally, but it's a bit short. Piloting a lone, underpowered frigate is a bit on the uncomfortable side of challenging for me. Once I have one or two high-tech ships, that's when the ball starts rolling. That's when the amassing of wealth, ships, and skills begins to accelerate and proceed at a good pace, right up til you get a Paragon. Then once you get the Paragon, the game becomes a bit boring since nothing stands a chance anymore.

My 2¢

25
Suggestions / Re: "Hacking"
« on: July 06, 2013, 09:22:33 PM »
I think it could integrate well with the campaign layer (EDIT: with some reworking), but it would be an unnecessary layer of complexity in the combat layer. Outside of combat, I could see it being useful to steal schematics, reduce CR from one or more ships in a fleet, decrease their speed, make a ship's weapons/engines have a chance to malfunction (similar to the effect of having really low CR), etc. Perhaps it could be an ability unique to phase ships that you could sneakily send out to employ electronic warfare.

It's an interesting idea, but not one I'd want to have to keep track of in real time in combat.

26
Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Update
« on: July 03, 2013, 01:56:58 PM »
Fighters do have different repair times, though - using the "refit time" column in wing_data.csv, if you're modding inclined.

Yeah, with variable repair time, I don't think I'll have a problem with it. Crisis averted!

27
Discussions / Re: Kinetic Void
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:49:32 PM »
Yeah, I was actually thinking of necroing this thread as well when I noticed the sale, but decided not to.

Did some research of my own and it doesn't seem to have much game to it, at least not yet. It seems that the only thing even remotely fleshed out is the ship builder. Ultimately, I decided not to purchase it. It seemed kind of liking buying Spore for the creature creator. Yeah, it's pretty neat, but I want to play a fun game.

The combat looks to be similar to EVE online's, but with a less user-friendly UI, and without the decisions or scale of combat that makes EVE Online interesting (you can only ever control one ship). If you've ever played EVE Online, you'd probably know that the UI and combat are some of its weakest aspects, so that's saying something. If you've ever played any games where you dogfight other fighters, you'll be extremely disappointed by Kinetic Void's combat. There's nothing 'kinetic' about it.

Alpha is alpha, yes, but the biggest issues I have with the combat can't be solved with a bit of polish; it would need a complete re-write. It makes me wish I had X3 so I had something else to compare it to, to see if the problem is endemic to the genre. EDIT: there are probably some gameplay videos on youtube. eh, i'll look it up later, maybe

28
Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Update
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:17:07 PM »
Fighter wings will re-spawn as long as there is free flight-deck capacity. So, as long as you have at least as many flight decks as wings you can't lose a fighter wing.
If you have fewer flight decks than fighter wings, the only chance to lose a  wing is if one gets destroyed while all flight decks are busy re-producing fighters of another wing.

Hm? That's kind of odd to me. I'd thought the replacement fighters would just be queued up until none of the fighters need replacing, but I just re-read the blog post and you're actually right. I'll have to think about it, but I'm not sure I like that.

So, as long as you have at least as many flight decks as wings you can't lose a fighter wing.

Well, that's technically not true. Say you have 2 Talon wings, wing A and wing B, and 2 flight decks which are occupied replacing 2 lost fighters from wing A. If wing B gets killed off while wing A's fighters are still under construction, wing B would be taken out of the battle. What you said would be true if the fighter wings only contained a max of 1 fighter, though. To truly not risk having a fighter wing removed from the battle you'd need as many flight decks as fighters deployed (not fighter wings, fighters), minus the number of fighters in the smallest fighter wing, plus 1.

That scenario is the main reason I'm unsure whether I'm happy with the way it's implemented. It could mean that fighter wings with fewer fighters will be more desirable since it makes it less likely for a flight deck to be occupied at any one time, which reduces the chances of a fighter wing being taken out of the battle (assuming more than one fighter wing deployed at a time). The counterargument would be that a fighter wing with more fighters would be less likely to be completely killed off before a carrier starts churning out replacements.

It just seems like fighter wings with fewer fighters per wing would be more easily supported by fewer flight decks. Maybe if rebuild times vary between fighter wings, it'll be fine. Or maybe it's fine the way it is. This requires more thought, when it's not 2am.

29
Discussions / Re: New Moderator
« on: June 25, 2013, 03:09:14 PM »
Grats, LazyWizard.... however, I'll forever misread your name as LadyWizard. I swear, I read it wrong every time.

30
Suggestions / Re: Caplock switch between strafe mode and turn mode
« on: June 17, 2013, 09:37:53 AM »
You know you can rebind the keys, right? Swap 'shift-a' for 'a' and 'shift-d' for 'd'.

Alternatively, there's an option in config.json called "autoturnMode:false". Set that option 'true' and your ship will always turn towards cursor, unless you're holding shift.

EDIT: Looks like I already posted earlier in the thread... about 10 months ago or so.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35