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 - StahnAileron

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
151
Turn off auto-fire for one of the groups before turning on autopilot. The Autopilot will use the non-autofire group normally. I had that problem once as well and found out I could just have Autofire on for every group if I intended to use Autopilot (simulation mode, to test set-ups for the AI to use.) As I recall, one of the AI changes in 0.52a was for it to not select an auto-fire group, since it screws up auto-fire's routines. Just be sure to always have at least one group on manual fire for the Autopilot to use.

152
Suggestions / Re: Missile's conga lines
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:22:28 AM »
I'm aware of how useful it can be to dsiable weapons on a ship. Still, I don't like scattering my fire all over a target if I can just hit one area of their hull. IF I can hit that area constantly, any weapon in that zone would be disabled and I can start damaging the hull quicker. I don't don't need to disable ALL the guns on a ship. At most, just the ones that can can get a bead on me from my firing point. If I'm targetting the engines of an Onslaught, for example, I don't need to try to disable its forward guns. If I just concentrated my fire on just the aft end, it'll die faster than if I was hitting it all over the place.

Still, I know what you mean. I didn't mean to imply disabling weapon was pointless/useless (far from it). Perhaps I should 've said, "[...] unless you're actively trying to disable weapons as well for whatever reason." ;)

153
Suggestions / Re: Better missiles
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:12:15 AM »
Realistically, you only need part of the shell to be magnetically-induced to propel a railgun shell. Hell, the shell could be ceramic and all you used was a plate underneath it to push it.

There is no real "heat" when firing a shell. Most of the heat would be in the barrel, not the shell. (The barrel acts like a giant heatsink, really.) And that's mainly from friction in the case of railguns, assuming there's physical contact in the barrel. Coilguns are a class of EM-accelerated guns that don't have that problem. (They are also referred to as "railguns" in mainstream use.) Now, the heat from friction while traveling through an atmosphere could be a problem, but you can make thermally-insulated shells.

And electronics in the shell would just have to (heavily) EM-shielded and be able to withstand the acceleration force of firing. The latter is possible today to some extent. They have electronics that can function even after several thousands G's of acceleration.

Course correction in an atmosphere would just require control surfaces (fins) anyway, given the context of the previous comment (though considering the speeds involves, that might not be wise or readily feasible). Space is another matter, though.

154
Suggestions / Re: Black Hole
« on: May 16, 2012, 06:55:37 AM »
The "debris" rings would be gases and plasma circling the around the blackhole's event horizon in real life. The radiation would be caused by the extreme stress and friction of said gases and plasma orbiting the blackhole at high velocity. Again, that's real life theory.

As for gameplay mechanics: just make it a hazard in space. If you get too close to one, you start taking damage to your ship/fleet. Otherwise, you can treat them like a planet if you keep your proper distance. Of course, even if you do land dead smack on top of one, you'd still be able to escape. I wouldn't want it so that if you fell into an in-game blackhole that you couldn't get out.

If you want spome other effects, we can take the radiation aspect (assuming all blackhole in game are the same) as make it so the radiation requires you to have your shields up to prevent damage of some sort (I'd advocate killing crew slowly.) So if I had to sum up a balckhole mechanic for the game:

  • Outer radius - Standard gravity field. Just like flying around planets.
  • Middle radius - Radiation ring. Shields required for protection. Does shield damage, so you can only stay here for so long before taking damage. Can destroy you if you let it, but you can maybe still salvage the ship afterwards.
  • Inner radius - Event Horizon. Continuous damage taken, regardless of shield status. Will destroy you (and prevent possible salvage) if stay in it too long.

That's the basic gameplay mechanic I can think of for blackholes. Not very realistic in the absolute sense (you'd be utterly screwed immediately if you cross an event horizon), but this is a game, so liberties can be taken for the sake of gameplay mechanics ;)

155
Suggestions / Re: Recoil & knock back
« on: May 16, 2012, 06:34:27 AM »
I can only see knockback working against fighters, MAYBE frigates, but that that's it. Recoil wouldn't really work at these scales unless you have oversized weapons for a given ship size (like a large mount on a frigate). However, to make recoil logical and believeably perceptible even in that case, the ship would essentially be firing a significant proportion of its mass as the projectile. At most, Starfarer is using a speed of like 1km/sec (from just eyeballing bullets in game versus the range lists for a target). That's not much to budge a ship without reducing the ship mass or increasing the effective mass of the projectiles (relative to one another).

Now, if you slam a HVD shell into a fighter, yeah, I can see the fighter getting knocked around (assuming it survived the hit to begin with). A Tach-Lance or Gauss shell into a frigate I can see maybe not knocking it around, but perhaps deflecting its heading off course a bit.

So limited knockback is doable (small target vs big gun); recoil, no.

156
Suggestions / Re: Recoil & knock back
« on: May 15, 2012, 03:28:49 PM »
Uh... no. You are SO wrong on that point. That's not a "wake". That's the pressure-/shockwave from the gas and projectiles leaving the barrels impacting the surface of the water and deforming it. 9 tons (total, though judging from the barrel positions, it looks more like 6 tons) fired at less than 1km/sec muzzle velocity is not gonna move 55,000 tons of mass like that, if at all.

157
General Discussion / Re: Paragon Loadout
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:22:21 PM »
Tach-Lances take a bit of the fun out of actually doing something with the Paragon. I find myself preferring to actually getting in the brawl to beat the bloody hell out of something rather than hanging back and just sniping stuff from stand-off ranges. Well, assuming I'm even in a Paragon as my player ship/flagship. (I'm usually not since I despise the lack of speed.) For AI use, though, yeah; I go Tach-Lances for my AI Paragons.

158
Suggestions / Re: A simple UI feature
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:17:37 PM »
Just to clarify and make my suggestion a bit more (painfully) obvious, I made a visual aid.

[attachment deleted by admin]

159
General Discussion / Re: Paragon Loadout
« on: May 14, 2012, 05:34:09 PM »
Here is my favorite Paragon loadout. I've found it to be the most effective in every situation, whether directly or AI controlled.

No missiles. All slots are: Autopulse, Pulse, or IR pulse, exceptions being the two rear side small mounts, which are burst PD. 1875 flux dissipation and accelerated shields are especially helpful when the AI controls it, for obvious reasons.

With manual control and careful flux management, this loadout can easily defeat multiple enemy capital ships without taking hull damage at all, even default Paragons. The ridiculous barrage of pulse lasers is even reliable for taking out incoming missiles from any angle, though the burst PD in those high-coverage turrets often help.

However, I'm fairly convinced that there could still be improvements made to this loadout to further increase general effectiveness. I just wish there were more choices for small energy mounts.

Picture:
Spoiler
[close]

I know this loadout - I've done similar. I sacrifice the rear Md turret for Sm weapons to free up some more OPs (I dump them in capacitors ;)). Piloted well, what you need to kill is always in front of you, never behind, so the rear weapons are kinda redundant for me. I still leave something there to help take out fighters and smaller, faster ships though.

160
Modding / Re: Macross,Lotgh,Banner of the stars
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:45:24 PM »
Although... The crest of the stars take on FTL could make for some interesting battles in a videogame.

FTL in C/BotS is 2D... Just like Starfarer in it's current state. ;) It was called Planespace for a reason. Planespace combat in C/BotS was basically 2D strategy (the planespace planning) and 3D engagement (when Spacetime bubbles merged). In other words, C/BotS is some videogame gameplay mechanics made practical in fiction, in-universe ;)

Anyway, Starfarer already has the equivalent of the Basroil in concept: it's the Wolf-class frigate. Give a Wolf a Heavy/Mining Blaster and PD Lasers (plain, burst, or LR is your choice) and you have your basic Basroil right there. The Basroil was the first thing I thought of when I saw the Wolf's hardpoints set-up. You just need a sprite change.

161
Suggestions / Re: Straight up ANNOYING annihilator rockets
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:35:43 PM »
If this is now talking about the opposite effect the OP initially suggested, wouldn't it better to give every non-PD weapon a chance to hit/miss percentage against missiles while PD weapons always have a 100% hit chance? Yeah, hitting a missile with a slow, heavy cannon shot would indeed be hard, but completely possible if the missile is in fact traveling straight down its firing line.

Well, this is assuming the devs even want to change the current behavior. It's another weapon stat to consider/track (unless they give all non-PD weapons a flat percentage chance or derive the percentage via function/formula using already existing stats, like bullet speed, accuracy, and tracking/turret speed.)

162
Suggestions / Re: Straight up ANNOYING annihilator rockets
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:36:41 AM »
No offense, but I think you're attacking the enforcers wrong, then ::)

I always try to attack vessels from the sides or rear, not from dead in front of them. I never had an issue fighting against ships with rockets. Hell, I like rockets. I was thinking of even maybe getting into modding and adding a low-damage kinetic rocket weapon designed/meant to simply distract PD weapons (and deplete the ammo based ones) while helping a little bit against shields. I even has some lore thought up for it.

163
Uh, actually, I had an enemy Tempest do that to me earlier (I wish I had a shot of that). It only happens when the enemy is doing the "Breakthrough"/Escape goal for a battle. It hasn't done that to me yet in a normal Attack or Defend scenario. If it happens again, I'll try to remember to get a screenshot to be sure.

EDIT: Yep. Got it to do it again. Got a screenshot, but I can't add it to an edited/modified message and I don't like double-posting if I can help it (bad forum etiquette, IMO.)

164
I caught a small fleet of fast ships (Tempest, Wasps) with my larger fleet, so they decided to "break through" and escape. I'm finding that try evade by trying to fly off to the sides  (trying to maintain a distance of about 1000-1500 minimum from any of my ships) before trying to head back toward my side of the field.

Problem: if my ships can keep up with them pretty well (I had Tempests deployed), they KEEP flying off to the side, past the edge of the battlefield, THEN continue southward once they are at their safe minimum distance of 1000-1500 away from any of my vessels. My vessels, on the other hand, can't/won't travel beyond the visible bounds of the battlefield.

So in other words: there's an exploit/bug that fast AI vessels can use to run away during a breakthrough goal that players can't counter at all. My ships will stop and back up once they pass the map edges if they'r not ordered to retreat. The same restriction doesn't seem to affect enemy ships. Screenshot attached to show the situation.

[attachment deleted by admin]

165
General Discussion / Re: tempest: 4 capacitors vs swarmer SRM
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:41:52 AM »
Well, I meant in regards to vessel loadout, not base tech-level ::)

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13