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 - c plus one

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12
46
Blog Posts / Re: Orbital Fleet Behavior
« on: March 20, 2018, 03:41:56 PM »
An imminent dev blog-post! The suspense.

All fighters, report in. Red One standing by.....  :D

47
Blog Posts / Re: Zen and the Art of Battlestation Construction
« on: March 13, 2018, 02:48:35 PM »
One crazy idea, though; why not make these battles multi-stage?  Like:

Stage one:  engage defense fleet.

Stage two:  penetrate minefield under fighter attack.

Stage three:  fight station, remaining defense fleet elements, etc.

It’d give battles more drama and eat CR clock without being just endless-seeming waves.

Not crazy at all. Instead, I say "YES PLEASE".

This would add a highly-relevant flavour of spice to the tactical stew. I would welcome the necessity of fighting consecutive, classic "approach battles" on the way to getting to knife-duelling range of the battlestation itself. Fighting against fixed immobile fortifications should be significantly different from Starsector's basic ship-vs-ship combat in thought-provoking ways that go beyond our expectations.

Just one concrete example of such, among many others:
Temporary blocking terrain - in the form of a few hulks of previously-destroyed attacker ships - would be a minor navigational hazard for the player's attacking ships while also providing some short-term cover against sniper fire coming from the battlestation. I would like to have to metaphorically thread the eye of the needle on my way to a VERY carefully-executed maybe-victory.

A look towards another example:
<a new hope>
(Attacking ships involuntarily bucking, yawing & losing some speed as they close in on the battlestation)
"We're passing through their interdiction magnetic field; hold tight!"
</a new hope>
 ;)

Currently holding additional suggestions in reserve...

48
Suggestions / Re: Display missile health on the mouseover menu
« on: March 09, 2018, 02:56:40 PM »
I would like to see this become implemented. It's a solid QoL feature.

49
Lore, Fan Media & Fiction / Re: Near Citadel Arcadia
« on: March 06, 2018, 05:53:16 PM »
<gollum>
We cravess moooorre of the tasssty sstory, Prrecioouss, oh yes we doesss!
</gollum>
 ;)

50
Suggestions / Re: Mod Section Date format poll
« on: July 15, 2017, 02:12:40 AM »
I voted in the poll. ISO 8601, all the way.

If the moderators enforce its use in the Mods Forum, so much the better.
Less unintended confusion in modding threads = win.


51
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Buffalo MkIIs v0.0.1(WIP)
« on: June 27, 2017, 12:37:25 AM »
I heartily endorse this product and/or service. ;D

52
Modding / Re: Spriters judgement thread [non-sprite art allowed]
« on: June 23, 2017, 04:15:59 PM »
(-image snipped-)

I adore the graceful compound curves of that hullform. The contour shading does a marvelous job of displaying the three-dimensionality of the ship. The overall effect is reminiscent of the egg-carrying mystery freighter from the "Alien" movies. I'd like to purchase a fleet of about 20 of these...do you accept cash, or credit?  ;)

Turret sprites may very well need to be customized instead of using vanilla sprites. Likewise for a touch less shadow density around the perimeter. This would add a great deal to the "realism" and believability of the ship. Such turret changes would make it mesh better with official hull sprites on account of "doing its own thing" in a way that's vanilla-inspired, without being merely vanilla-duplicated.

Ummmm...is it too soon to beg for more hulls of this same graphical standard? Streamlined styling and heavy use of the z-axis for the win! (Please?)

53
General Discussion / Re: Are the colossus Mk II and Mk III good?
« on: June 20, 2017, 09:03:20 PM »
I, too, would like to see two carrier bays instead of just one. Thank you in advance, devs, for hopefully considering this change.

54
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Neutrino Corp. (v. 1.84RC2.1)
« on: June 09, 2017, 03:01:29 PM »
It's a small thing, but seeing as they're assault weapons first with secondary point-defense function, it's a tiny bit annoying. But maybe that's just me.

That's just the way Advanced Targeting Core is, friend.

Dislike the effect exerted upon Misery and Bane? If you prefer not to wait until Deathfly can consider the issue in detail, try removing the "PD" and "PD_ALSO" flags from both weapons, as seen in the "hints" column at the far right side of the mod's weapons.csv file. Re-save the file, and you're done.

Of course you can't have your cake and eat it too. With the above changes, those weaps will lose all of their automated PD utility. Against missiles, that now means manual targeting only; good luck with that. :-\  Personally, with such slow shot speeds and even slower turret rotation speeds, I don't consider Misery and Bane to be very good point-defense weapons anyway. At least they do have a rate of fire that's decent for attack purposes.

But when mounted aboard an ATC-equipped ship they will now share in the 200% range buff. You need to decide which use case is preferable for your playstyle and tweak (or not) accordingly. Enjoy!  :)

55
CaptainWinky, you're a right proper credit to the modding community.  ;D

This is just a quick release before I go to work today.

Question:
Does the above imply that there are other, perhaps more substantial TUP improvements (or even additions) in the pipeline for imminent release?

56
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Console Commands v3.0 WIP 3 (released 2017-06-04)
« on: June 05, 2017, 02:47:11 PM »
LazyWizard, thank you for the recent update. I enjoy Console Commands a great deal and am thrilled that version 3's WIP has that new-car smell. For a "lazy" person, you rock!  ;D

57
Suggestions / Re: "Cooperate" command—a less severe "Escort".
« on: June 05, 2017, 02:40:48 PM »
I love this.  I hate it when an easy mop up mission ends up with lost hulls because *someone* decided they wanted to wander off to the flank.

Exactly! That makes me rage, also.

Would the devs please add the proposed Cooperate order? It would be greatly appreciated.

58
Suggestions / Re: Please make the name field accept more characters
« on: June 05, 2017, 02:34:13 PM »
I'd like a longer text-string available for character naming, too. Please consider this QoL improvement - thanks in advance.

59
I'm curious about the same thing.

When building my current 64-bit PC I included 32 GB of RAM. Even when I have my usual various non-game programs doing their thing, CPU use is typically still under 20% and I could also allocate 6 GB for Starfarer and do it with ease. Even 8 GB on occasion, if I intended to enable every single faction mod that exists for the game (as well as go utterly berserk with Nexerelin  ;D ).

However, I would drastically rein-in my silicon horses if I knew for certain that such large RAM allocation would somehow choke Starfarer. As long as I have more than enough memory headroom for 64-bit Windows 8.1 PRO, I have trouble seeing how being more generous with the game would actually cause problems instead of solutions.  ???

Would someone out there who knows the truth be willing to explain this in a way that persons with no significant experience with Java can easily understand? Thanks.

60
Release 0.8a compatibility checked.
All system functional.

Not functional, actually:

This mod includes sprite graphics for two new weapons: bds_lrbm.png  and bds_pdrailgun.png.

However, there is no weapon_data.csv file included in the mod. There are no specifications for those guns, so both gun sprites have no in-game function and are useless.

Please clarify; thanks.

[ If you choose to fix this, please don't forget to update the version number of this mod. :) ]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12