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 - StahnAileron

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13
166
General Discussion / Re: tempest: 4 capacitors vs swarmer SRM
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:02:53 AM »
Heavy blaster works by itself well if you rig the Tempest as a pure fast assault/attack ship. I have a whole fleet of Tempests rigged as AI-controlled mobile Heavy Blaster turrets. They are fast as agile (especially with the Hull mods I dumbed on them.) They only have issues when getting swarmed by massed enemies. I'm doing a quantity over quality fleet ;) 10 Tempests with only 1 HvyBlstr each will kill most things fairly well without taking too many casualities, if any. Not exactly FP efficient, but it gets the job done.

167
Suggestions / Re: Fighter craft and carrier hangar rework
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:50:24 PM »
and unlaunched fighters would get destroyed if the carrier get's destroyed

This happens anywa now. If you happen to kill a flight-decked vessel while it has fighters docked, the fighter die with it. Personally, I find that makes sense.

I'd rolled the idea of making fighters "weapons" for carriers to "mount" in my head for a little while now:

Carrier-capable vessels would have 2 stats: Launch bays and Hangar Space. Launch Bays would be how many wings they can "equip". Hangar Space would be the max FP cost of fighter they could handle. Also, a carrier-capable vessel would have it FP cost adjusted depending on the fighter complement it's carrying. So for example:

Astral has 50 Hangar Space (in-game accuarte right now.) For the sake of this idea, let's say we give it 6 Launch Bays (x2 the flight deck number for convenience). So now I can up to 6 wings worth 50 FP in total. Do I outfit it high tech wings, reducing my max wing count (granted, in this example, the worst case is a max of 5 out of the 6 wings available) or a bunch of lower tech wings to have a full complement and a lower total FP cost to bring the carrier out? (With the Astral current in-games stats, 22FP would be a bit high for my idea, so I'd lower it to like 15 just for the Astral itself, then add fighter FP cost on top. The Astral itself is a fire support vessel alone.)

Anyway, I gave this idea a lot of thought and honestly, it doesn't work. Not without completely overhauling the current Carrier/Fighter system. That's why I never bothered to mention it here, in fact. It would complicate the system more than it is now while adding more work and revision to the system at the same time. I mean, MAYBE if you change the fighter FP cost to OP costs instead would my idea kinda work. Seriously, though, I'd rather see the game in complete form before I start complaining about gameplay mechanics. (I'll readily complain about UI issues though ^_~) I'm willing to wait and see the devs' plans and vision for the game first before trying to shoehorn any ideas I have at them. I mean, not all the gameplay mechanics have been implemented yet, so it's not like we're seeing the whole picture now anyway, right?

168
Suggestions / Re: Missile's conga lines
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:27:22 PM »
The AI my have a problem, but a player controlled ship can offset the issue you describe by strafing as you fire. Multi-missile launches fire in a ripple, so you can spread the wave out a bit by strafing or even rotating as they fire.

And there are missile weapons that "spread" so to speak: MIRVs and Rockets. They aren't QUITE what you're looking for, but they do indirectly accomplish what you desire. (Though I wish the MIRV would split a LITTLE bit earlier than it does now.) The small rocket launcher does fire in a spread naturally. No guidance, however.

I do understand what you're describing though. If you ever played X3, missiles in that game will try to impact the closest point they can on a larger vessel instead of simply aiming straight for the center of mass all the time. However, in the case of Starfarer, you kinda want your firepower to concentrate on one location to blast though armor and do max damage to hull in a timely manner. Scattering fire all over a ship's body just prolongs the fight due to the armor system in Starfarer (unless you're actively trying to disable weapons as well for whatever reason.)

169
Suggestions / Re: A simple UI feature
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:15:18 PM »
LoL I think after my inital post here, everyone was more or less aware of the fact that I was suggesting re-using the weapons listings. I thought of that for the same reason you did: prevent the UI from being clutter by info that can be incorporated elsewhere easily.

Hell, maybe I'll make a mock-up of my idea just for fun and definitive visualization for everyone ^_~

170
Suggestions / Re: A simple UI feature
« on: May 13, 2012, 01:57:40 PM »
No offense, but is it just me, or are we now arguing over the EXACT same idea I already presented near the start of this topic...??? I'm sensing redundancy here...

Granted, I didn't provide pics for examples, but I thought it wouldn't have been necessary... Guess I was wrong?

171
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Dead ships and AI
« on: May 13, 2012, 03:25:20 AM »
Technically, the are disabled anyway, not "destroyed", despite what the BIG BOOM(tm) may imply. Just think that once the ship got disabled, the vents got stuck on "open".

172
Suggestions / Re: A simple UI feature
« on: May 12, 2012, 03:50:45 PM »
what about "vulcan cannon x8" when only 4 are disabled tho.....

It may not matter much. The Weapon Group window shows a condensed version of the weapons list. Any actively selected weapons group (i.e. the one current under direct player control) shows a more detailed listing off to the right of the groupings list. The detailed groups listing shows each weapon in the group individually. This is the main point of importance (IMHO) and what I was targetting with my previous suggestion.

This may be just me, but personally, I don't care about the weapons not under my control much, so their status is of lesser concern to me. I'm more interested in the status(es) of the weapons I'm actually trying to actively use instead. Still, Catra's idea works, though it would include having to add an extra line for each weapon type in a groups' group list. My idea simply re-uses data that's already being displayed. Perhaps a simpler:

  • "vulcan x0/8"
  • "vulcan x4/8"
  • "vulcan x8/8"

...scheme would be a better compromise for the group listings. I don't want to clutter that area more than necessary.

173
Suggestions / Re: A simple UI feature
« on: May 12, 2012, 10:39:51 AM »
It could be made part of the weapons windows at the bottom of the screen. Disable weapons are made red and the reload/refire gauge next to them indicates time to repair.

174
Suggestions / Re: Sprite cycling
« on: May 12, 2012, 10:33:50 AM »
From what I can tell, this is a sprite-based game. Imagine all the overhead you'd need to make another set of sprites for every ship. Even if you share sprites, imagine the coding needed to position the same sprite correctly on different ships. The damage decal issue was already brought up as well. You'd have to take those into account when creating and setting the animation sprites.

Many things look simple at first glance until you dig into it and start accounting for everything.

175
Suggestions / Re: Sprite cycling
« on: May 12, 2012, 07:42:05 AM »
Honestly, this is most aesthetic icing. This would require more time and effort than the devs could possible put into this game and still get it out the door in finished form within a reasonable timeframe. The graphics are nice enough as-is and it's still in alpha/active dev. While some more eye-candy would be nice, I'd probably hold off on it until the beta stage unless adding the feature in the future would require working out the system now.

I agree it would be nice and add some personality to the ships, but I'd rather the devs work on stuff that adds to the gameplay first.

176
Suggestions / Re: Remove type restrictions from weapons mounts
« on: May 12, 2012, 05:25:05 AM »
I'd rather have the option to convert a turret to a fixed hardpoint or maybe even vice versa. There have been time when I REALLY wish I could make all the forward facing turrets on a ship fixed so it'd be easier for me to manually aim and fire them in a single salvo instead of contending with where my cursor is located and where my ship is pointed. (Yes, I do use combined turret/hardpoint weapon groups sometimes, like with my quad Tach-Lance Paragon.)

177
Suggestions / Re: Better missiles
« on: May 12, 2012, 05:19:24 AM »
I've always consider them a secondary, complementary weapon to ballistic and energy weapons. Namely, to augment you firepower in a burst at opportune moments.

I generally don't use missiles (if there was a hotkey for fire missile regardless of the weapon group I have selected, that'd be nice), but the times I do, they work to great effect. I run the Gunrunner's mod and a Helios with Reaper launchers is no joke if I can get behind/through shielding. There no other single weapon that can do the damage a Reaper can in a single shot.

I also disapprove of the use of real-life practices as analogues for gameplay. Cruise missile can fly for hundreds of miles, yes, but they are SLOW compared to other missile types. They sacrifice top speed for endurance and agility (and by extension, evasion/detection).

Can I see a fully loaded missile-only ship? Yes, but the current practicel limit would be for fire support. The only viable fire-support missiles in the game are Pilums and MIRVs. Harpoons are viable if you're willing to risk a vessel of that type (or it has shields). Rockets are wondrous suppression weapons (I just whish you got a bit more ammo for them in stock configs instead of having to rely on extended missile mags.)

Honestly, the biggest problem I see for missile-only ships would be mounting placements for them. The Buffalo would be more viable to me if all its missile hardpoints faced one direction instead of the 3 direction it's currently set up for. Rain o' Rockets!

If anything, I just want the rockets to be sped up a little (maybe) and a bigger variety of missiles (especially for the larger mounts.)

There was a bunch of stuff I was thinking of, but I wanted to keep this short, so...

178
Actually, I've noticed my ships tend to beeline for enemies and ignore ME completely, even if I'm in the path. Annoying seeing my flock of Tempests ram into me (a Hyperion) while they try to chase down a retreating Talon wing. >:(

Well, the game is still in dev and Alex is trying to get the core gameplay system and mechanics in place. Fine-tuning stuff can happen later once the core game is done. AI is one of the harder parts of programming for a game, isn't it?

179
General Discussion / Re: is the buffalo usable?
« on: May 12, 2012, 01:44:38 AM »
I thought the cheap, ubitiquous Lasher was that. Oh, and the hound.
The buffalo... is pretty worthless.

The lasher is a low tech ship, but it's pretty balanced for fitting into many roles.

The Hound... The Hound is a pain in the ass early game as a harrassing unit since it's the fastest friagte in the game. Only the Tempest comes close and the Tempest is far superior overall. The hound is "low level", no doubt, but it's speed (and cargo space for the speed and FP cost outside of combat) is a very redeeming feature.

The Buffalo is slow, weakly armored, and it's main weapons (missiles) can be easily avoided/defended against. It's more of the early game punching bag than the Lasher or Hound, IMHO. If it at least had some basic shields on it, I think it's be worth more. Part of the reason I don't use it is because I see it as a supply drain if anything gets near it. Repairing the Buffalo after each fight more than is necessary would drain your supplies quickly. Not so bad if it can actually stay back and do fire support well, but the current AI leaves much to be desired, IMHO.

Looking at the Buffalo on paper makes it sound viable as an early game LR fire support ship. In practice, no so much when you take into account maintanence/upkeep costs and the like. Might work well enough if the Buffalo is player-flown instead of AI flown though. *shrug*

180
General Discussion / Re: Question about supplies
« on: May 11, 2012, 07:57:21 AM »
A Hyperion with a mass of Tempests for a fleet works well to keep daily supply usage down. A handful of Hounds in the mix for cargo space if needed. (I mention Hounds just to help keep fleet speed up.) Though 10-16 Tempests may be a pain to acquire. Still, that's only around 200 crew = 2 supply/day.

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