Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

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 - c plus one

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Discussion / Re: Gladius
« on: October 10, 2020, 06:37:37 PM »
I've heard that someone's tested out fighters with burn drives before, but the AI fighters weren't so great at using them.  Don't quote me on that, though.

Unless the game AI has all fighters in a given wing activate their Burn Drives in unison, that wing will be facing imminent defeat in detail. Without that guarantee, equipping fighters with a Burn Drive shipsystem is unlikely to be constructive or fun.  :(

The only exception I can see is if that shipsystem is given to a fighter wing consisting of a single fighter, which bypasses the likelihood of that wing's fighters spread out much too far for mutual aid (either defensive or offensive). To me, that's not very satisfying; tactically it's more like a single corvette, instead of several fighters cooperating. Breaks immersion.

If Alex could somehow see his way towards implementing code such that all fighters in a wing Burn simultaneously, I'd be pleased as well as grateful.

General Discussion / Re: Gladius
« on: October 04, 2020, 01:43:04 AM »
I've not played anything older than .8-ish, so I wouldn't know how the Gladius or previous versions of frigates changed since then.

Retry: in older builds of Starsector the original Gladius had no flare launcher, and I welcomed its inclusion on the modern Gladius.

Of far greater importance, each individual Gladius was formerly equipped with one Light Dual Machine Gun and with TWO IR Pulse Lasers! After game versions 0.7.2a-RC3/RC10, that turned out to be a tad too spicy for Alex's taste and said weapons loadout had a traumatic encounter with the nerf-bat. I understand why it happened, but on occasion I do yearn nostalgically for the old loadout's ROFL-stomp nature. ;D

Back then, the physical location and type of the gun mountings were generally the inverse of today's Gladius spaceframe. The IRPLs were mounted in the narrow line-ahead hardpoints on the wings. The single Light Dual MG was in the front-facing central turret, enjoying 135-degree traverse. Situated thusly, that LDMG excelled at swatting down incoming missiles and causing stress for pilots of shielded enemy fighters, albeit only at close range. I remember enjoying that.

Gladius' relatively un-maneuverable nature made the then-hardpoint-based pair of IRPLs somewhat sub-par when trying to engage enemy fighters. That was not an obstacle when engaging enemy *ships* of destroyer size and larger. If you could line up an enemy frigate in your cross-hairs, a Gladius wing would soon do a credible imitation of a diamond drill-bit going through a cupcake. Visually, the IRPLs' spinal mountings made an individual Gladius handle like a tiny imitation of an Onslaught trying to bracket a hapless foe with its mighty Thermal Pulse Cannons. It was intriguing.

Formerly having 300 flux dissipation and 1500 (! :o ) maximum flux to work with, Gladius wings frequently were brutal to their foes. But with two IRPLs to feed, the threat was too often of frustratingly short duration even with so much flux available. The secret No Weapons Flux fighter-hullrefit did not exist back in the heyday of the two-IR Gladius, so it had to accomplish its mayhem with its high base numbers for flux handing.

As an aside, I've previously done experiments with trying various shipsystems aboard a Gladius in addition to its guns and flare launcher. I don't recall specifics right now of any of those performance trials (they were at least two years ago; sorry) aside from that I had found them encouraging. Perhaps that is an angle you'd like to explore for yourself? "Chacun a son gout!"

Discussions / Re: New game setup
« on: May 16, 2020, 04:48:06 PM »

Suggestions / Re: Pirate bases should be easier to find.
« on: August 27, 2019, 03:26:55 AM »
Agreed. This whole dynamic seems intended as a blend of exploration meets pest control, but at present its "needle in a haystack" aspect is just excessively burdensome grinding.

Suggestions / Re: Rename Sabot to Flechette
« on: August 11, 2019, 02:23:29 PM »
( Humble correction: there are only two t's in "flechette," not three. )

This game's Light/Heavy/Storm Needler weapons already fire flechette rounds, being needleguns in space; please refer to the Codex. Renaming the Sabot missile to Flechette missile isn't necessarily a guaranteed improvement that's worth the disruption to the playerbase - you're proposing renaming a core component of the game's arsenal. The missile isn't some obscure, niche weapon that's seldom encountered in Starfarer and would cause no trouble if re-branded (either gratuitously or of necessity). ???

Respecting the precedent established long ago by those gun-type weapons in this game, one could argue that it would be at least as desirable and clarity-generating to rename the Sabot missile to "Needler" missile. I am mostly neutral to doing such; others might think differently.

Suggestions / Re: Faction control: commodity legality toggles!
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:17:28 AM »
I like how this would introduce more nuance and granularity to the game. As you observed, I also think that in concert with implementation of your suggested Tariff Slider in-game control this legality toggle would serve the player well.

Would the buffs/nerfs stack across time?

Suggestions / Re: Colony control: tariff slider!
« on: November 29, 2018, 11:09:46 AM »
Yes, please! This is not only structurally better than the existing no-player-agency implementation, but it's also considerably more interesting as well. Put the decision-making power where it belongs: in the player's hands.

Discussions / Re: Other media that feels like Starsector
« on: November 26, 2018, 10:56:07 PM »
"Firefly" [] had elements which likely inspired a few aspects of this game's general feel. The show was made 16 years ago, and still has a devoted following. Such a shame that it was cancelled by soulless salesdroids masquerading as corporate executives.

Suggestions / Re: Event notifications should respect pause state
« on: November 18, 2018, 08:32:10 PM »
An emphatic +1.

Suggestions / Re: rename Escort order to Protect
« on: July 28, 2018, 08:04:44 PM »
It's not that the player doesn't understand that the escorting ship will try to protect the escortee, it's that certain ships will act in ridiculous and suicidal ways when told to protect other ships, which is not intuitive. It needs to be fixed, not better explained.

Emphasis mine. A decisive fix to that will significantly help. I'm increasingly frustrated by the current highly counterproductive behaviour in-game.

It's difficult for me as well. Not impossible, but needlessly difficult due to the game GUI. Hard to get ahead on the strategic level when you can't easily & instantly see where you are currently located. It would be helpful if this design oversight was addressed. Please consider this - thx :)

On a related note, can fighters and/or missiles travel faster than speed 600?

If so, how much faster?

Not only do I fully support the proposal, but I've been annoyed for a while that it's not already in the game. The need is certainly there.

There's also no way of getting into the codex from within the salvage operation UI.

An important oversight; triply so for the impact upon inexperienced players.

Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« on: April 27, 2018, 04:56:01 PM »
I think I would like to see a range boost hullmod whose purpose is to give a flat bump in range to all weapons (50/100/200/300), incompatible with ITU/DTC/ATC, and costing less than the original hullmod (3/6/12/18 OP).  This would offer a cheaper option somewhere in between an ITU and having no ITU, with a niche applicable to extremely short-range weapons.

I would very much like to see such a hullmod added to the official game content.

Right now, since ITU/DTC don't really have a cheap alternative, the choice really just boils down to:
1. Use ITU/DTC.
2. Make a balls-to-the-wall berserker build.

There's not much depth.

Agreed in full. We should have a "third way" to allow finer-grained build/variant diversity.

Suggestions / Re: Phase Ship Time Boost
« on: April 23, 2018, 04:21:59 PM »
Maybe just have manual speed-up button? Phase ships aren't the worst case in 'taking ton of time to get to enemies' anyway - that's Paragon.
I second this. A few speed controls would be lovely, something like .5, 1, 2, 3.

I am in favour of this particular in-game speed-throttle implementation. Please add an "x4" to the above buttons, too.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10