Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

16

Suggestions / Re: Factions war exhaustion system

« on: December 19, 2018, 07:06:32 AM »

Hmm, but if you allow this much granulometry, you wlil have to be playing with allocation sliders all day.

I think it should be mostly automatic. The amount of different resources your colonies produce/can use, and the distance/trade it's getting from other planets and colonies, determines automatically what sort of fleets it spawns and how many (in addition to modifications by that planet's infrastructure)

So if you nuke a lot of faction's planets and the remaining ones cant get trade resources from some other place, they'll be able to spawn a lot less ships.

17

Suggestions / Re: Some suggestions about "foreign relations"

« on: December 19, 2018, 06:12:39 AM »

New  types of infrastructure could also be faction specific and/or have specific impacts /deleterious effects on your nearby colonies. For example, Sindrian planets could have gulags which reduces political problems like Pathers but also has negative effects. And if you choose to add gulags to your planet, you also get the same negative effect.

All in all good opportunity to further differentiate factions and add more options to the player.

18

Suggestions / Re: Blending drive field travel and in-combat travel

« on: December 19, 2018, 04:26:56 AM »

Combat and campaign are two  games that don't play nicely just yet.  You seem to suggest adding a third layer, which might just make things more complicated

Campaign should just be a zoomed out version of combat, but this is impossible due to performance limitations etc. I suggest the following instead, also maybe impossible since the game chokes when you turn up the battle size setting:

Whenever one fleet 'hits' another after targeting it (obviously nothing happens when they just pass over each other as neutrals or whatever):

There's a quick dialogue giving options to talk (transponder fees, inspection, bribery, etc) or fight (as I discuss in the ambush thread having the outmaneuver option is lame).

Spawning
If you choose fight, then every ship in both fleets spawn rather close in the middle of a large, round map, entering at the speeds and vectors they were on in campaign map. (formation determined by order in the fleet window)

Retreating
 Ships  retreat by going to any edge of the map, and spawn as a separate baby fleet or fleets in campaign. They spawn  on the campaign map a little distance away from the main battle in whatever direction they left the battlefield. Ideally, the campaign map would keep going at a much reduced rate (like 20x slower or something) during combat, but this isn't essential.

After battle regrouping
The attacking fleet decides which if any of the retreated ship fleetlets it will attack, or tries to regroup with its own retreated fleetlets.  The losing fleet, if any is left, runs away or summons its own retreated ship fleet(s). Maybe combat or a chase ensues, depending on the results.

Needless to say, if some of your ships retreat and after the combat are caught by another enemy before you can join that combat, that combat will autoresolve.


Makes combat more tactical/ interesting.
So retreating is dangerous, and its a good way to lose a ship, because if a valuable freighter  retreats, the enemy (if he sees it) could retreat one of its own frigates in the same direction, which could then catch it. So everyone is incentivized to keep their fleet together, rather than retreating ships, and form defensive lines around civilians, etc. It would make combat a lot more tactically nuanced..

19

Modding / Re: [0.9a] Tactical Map Screen Unpauser

« on: December 19, 2018, 02:58:19 AM »

When you're on the command screen and trying to take a commander's view of things, you'll be using F quite a lot, since the map doesn't zoom in enough to provide any clarity about what's going on (basically the map has been broken since implementation).

So if you can get it to work with F, this mod will really be winning! Thanks again!

20

Suggestions / Re: Re-working command points and fleet command

« on: December 19, 2018, 02:46:55 AM »

Trying to overdesign for human stupidity is pointless.
You had beta testers getting lost in a circular corridor. If a player doesn't read the hints/tutorials, doesn't ask around or can't figure it out himself, don't even bother with that waste of oxygen.

Look around man. When game players were a self-selected group of only those willing  to read man pages and figure out unix commands or whatnot, this attitude would have worked out.. Now, you'd be asking a developer to cut off a bunch of their customers.

If you want these suggestions to be entertained, we need to preempt objections based on user comprehension.

21

Suggestions / Re: Increase planetary stocks

« on: December 19, 2018, 02:35:40 AM »

Have to disagree about the click desto then wait.....dont you remember that you have to avoid the communist clouds ALL OVER THE PLACE?!

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about most of the time. I suggest you say exactly what you mean without trying to use metaphors, similes, or analogy. I have no idea what the communist cloud is. You are failing to be articulate.  If you're going to talk in this thread about some random, offtopic thing in the game that annoys you, at least do it in a more clear way (like I do), but preferably remain on topic.

I'm reserving my complaints for 0.9.1, because this is clearly a first-pass on the economy...

It's like the 5th pass of the economy.

Global modifications to tariffs and soft-TC mods that adjust the system generation, market and planet composition of vanilla as well as making trading more viable by messing with Pirate and Pather base spawns seem like the best way to argue this. Trade is monotonous, but if people want monotonous play I can't see it being terribly difficult to give it to them with a little light modding.

You're probably right about the modding being the best solution.

 As I've said many times, trade isn't any more or less monotonous than other game-play like combat. It just appeals to a different set of pathologies than the ones combat appeals to. This is a community of self selected people willing to pay to alpha test a game that was only combat at the beginning. I'm not sure they're any longer the most representative playtesters for what will make a good game.

Overall, a good trade system just adds to the variety of the game and gives you more things to do -- and it also potentially stimulates new and different types of combats.

But if you intervene, Diktat and League want to kill you over it.  You build a new nation that puts the whole sector to shame, and everyone wants to set it on fire.

Athens after the Persian War
Rome
Spanish Empire
British Empire
Postwar America
etc

Every hegemonic power encounters this problem. I applaud Alex for (perhaps accidentally) making a game for adults with some kind of realistic power dynamics that deflates the ridiculous utopian individualist fantasies. You cannot just build something big and be left alone. If you have something good, people will want it and take it if you can't defend it. If you can defend it, you'll have to do some dubious things in the name of stability, and people will resent it and scheme against you.

22

Suggestions / Re: Auto-Retreat and Map Zones

« on: December 18, 2018, 05:40:49 AM »

Another idea for a different kind of combat-

combat over salvage/derelict ships AI ships could also start salvaging on the campaign maps. And for the player/them it could take a day or two (progress bar like hacking nav beacons)  and during that time, if the salvaging fleet is attacked, that whole fleet will be deployed, so the attacker has a chance to attack their civilian ships. In debris fields debris will be on the map, or the derelicts will be floating around, and be destroy-able too, so you can destroy your enemy's derelict which would be sort of an objective. Or if you chase the enemy away, you get it instead.

23

Suggestions / Re: Auto-Retreat and Map Zones

« on: December 18, 2018, 05:32:53 AM »

More differen combat will be good,  but the victory/zones system doesn't make any sense for almost all combats, particularly two fleets just meeting in space. Sure, you can add the rules and justify it with a hand wave, but it ought to be a last resort, because hand waves are for mediocre star trek episodes; making sense is better.

Here are a few random ideas:

-Buff giving ships as objectives. Instead of objectives or zones try to force combat into a certain shape, there should be ships with ECM/etc hullmods that provide buffs as good as objectives, but in a large area of effect zone (so people/AI won't hide them at the edge of the map). Yea, this takes away capturing, but capturing isn't that great. It does make defense more important. Perhaps the AI would have to be updated to really catch bullets for friendly ships marked with defense order. The current ECM mechanics aren't common or powerful enough to make those ships with ecm hullmods into defacto objectives.

Putting destroy-able, buff providing infrastructure on stations is also good. Combat with stations already is "zone of control combat" because in order to win the combat, you have to control the vulnerable areas around the station in order to a) defend it or b) destroy it. This is an example of a good way to do combat. You don't need arbitrary zones or victory points for stations/big things.

Round map Yea this won't solve a lot of issues, but at least there won't be corners.

rebalance all combat to be much more faster/destructive so there would be less slow chases along the map edge? e.g. instead of having 15 missiles that go really slowly across the map and do almost no damage individually, have 1 missile that goes really fast and does lots of damage? More Iaian M Banks and less pre WWI fleet combat.

Combat in the middle The map could be bigger, but both fleets should spawn closer to the middle, then have all edges be retreatable. But if the map is bigger, there could be more boring long chases.

classic no deployment choice option. Really, the map should be much bigger, and both fleets should spawn in their entirety with no option to hold ships back. This would create battle lines to protect freighters, etc, but probably the game performance can't handle it because of java being slow or whatever technical reason I don't know about.

Having all the edges be auto retreat zones in any case is probably good. Yea, it gets a bit awkward to decide what to do with all the ships that retreated/escaped, but maybe it's ok for the two fleets after combat to reappraise their respective numbers and decide whether to attack again or try to flee. But This might result in boring chain combats of you lose, you lose, you lose, you finally die.

Unless...

Have the campaign map keep iterating during combat so retreating ships form separate fleets  obviously it would iterate really slow. So that you could have ships retreat from combat and they'd form additional baby fleets that would fly away or do whatever and then you could regroup with them afterwards or summon them back to you with a sensor ping.

some kind of routing mechanic Like in dominions 5, where whenever a ship retreats by going to the edge of the map, it 'routes' and is automatically moved a certain distance away on the campaign map (based on burn speed). This is like the above somewhat.

Let's think up more ideas.

24

Suggestions / Re: Ambushes are boring, make pursuer spawn closer in combat map

« on: December 18, 2018, 01:48:33 AM »

Pirates going in guns blazing to snag some sweet cargo/ships to add to their fleet makes perfect sense to me, as long as they're not picking fights with fleets that are obviously going to steamroll them.

I agree with pretty much everything in this thread, combat is too predictable - the only things that ever seem to change are the ships you use/fight, but even then the ubiquity of pirates makes most fights be against the same collosi, ventures, hounds etc. over and over again. Making combat dynamic and less predictable is essential IMO.

Yea, this is true. I like that the developer thinks about fairness, so he wants to make sure that there aren't situations where the battle is really unfair to either the player because of some starting condition, or the AI because it's something it isn't used to dealing with.

But it needs to be relaxed to improve variety. The current emphasis on pitched line battles is a bit artificial and primitive, and does really have a pokemon vibe. What makes for interesting battles and tactics is that sometimes you are put in a very unfair or unexpected situation, and you have to come up with something original to deal with it.

I think this revised ambush mechanic would help, because the starting positions of the ships/fleets would be somewhat random, and might often be quite 'unfair' so that the player is forced to make split second decisions about which ships to sacrifice, fight, etc. (if they won't/cant pay off their attacker)

25

General Discussion / can I disable tactical map transparency?

« on: December 18, 2018, 01:31:26 AM »

Hi folks,

Is it possible to disable the transparency of the tactical map somehow in settings.json or wherever? I couldn't find anything likely, and I didn't find any likely topics in the forum search.

I understand why you'd want to have the map be transparent, I just personally find it distracting, and i'd rather look at one thing or the other, not both at the same time. I disable transparent GUI elements on all my computers when  I can.

26

General Discussion / Re: Level scaling is overly agressive and immersion breaking

« on: December 18, 2018, 01:06:40 AM »

Frankly, though, hmm. Derelicts - pristine or not, in large numbers or not (as Thaago already mentioned) - do not pose that much of a threat. And there's always probes and such that are entirely undefended. And there's a plethora of other ways to get back on your feet. Missions, bar events, rummaging through Remnant systems in stealth mode, and so on.

The state of the game world changes as the game goes on, you know? If you're knocked that far down and want *all* of the early-game options to be as effective as they were to begin with, then starting a new game is probably the way to go. Otherwise, again, there's a lot of options available, it's just not the same identical set as at the start of the game.

Ok, I see what you mean. Yea maybe this case isn't such a big deal. Though I wouldn't want there to be too much level scaling in the game.

27

Suggestions / Re: Increase planetary stocks

« on: December 17, 2018, 08:58:10 AM »

The game being 95% a combat game, with nearly every mechanic leading back to combat. Starsector has truly excellent combat and cool warship design: if players aren't doing that, they aren't playing a very good game.

Where are you getting 95% figure? 95% of playtime? I reckon it's not for most players. 95% of developer focus? What's the quantification?

Exploration/sneaking side of SS is better than the combat. Beautiful environments, compelling atmosphere, there's real jeopardy sneaking around unexplored systems as a small fleet, plus fun fleet logistics. I get more endorphins from finding weird planets, hiding from AIs in asteroid belts, and discovering space treasure than I do from combat.

SS Combat is overrated.

It's the nature of the gamey square map it takes place on, the way it's boxed off from the rest of campaign behind dialogue clickthrus, and the way that it is usually not that interesting. If it isn't fleeing, then it's usually  two fairly equal masses of warships moving towards each other, which is the least interesting/challenging scenarios from a tactical standpoint. The action is slow; ships lumber around spamming pilum or whatever missiles that are even slower than a lot of the ships.

Or, it's mod mary-sue factions.

Though combat has a potential to be good, it lacks varied tactical play. It's  pokemon with the addition of some Freudian complex involving giant cannons and always winning (or reloading if you don't). The graphics aren't as pretty as campaign either; most ship sprites become shapeless pixel masses because of the number of weapon mounts.  The game constantly adds tonnes of new content that is outside combat. It doesn't matter what you want the game to be or what the developer wants it to be, what matters is what it actually is: Not 95% combat.

So legal trade and smuggling trade's inclusion can both only add to the game experience overall.

28

General Discussion / Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..

« on: December 17, 2018, 07:53:55 AM »

All this would do is either force the player to carry metals around with them (or always have enough free space to salvage them) - essentially a cargo space tax. Or induce the player into conducting micromanagement with floating cargo pods in order to repair damaged ships, while staying in one place to recover the items you dropped to make room for metals.

More complexity isn't always more good and some things are obfusicated for a reason. 'Realism' is not always a good thing to include in a game because it can get in the way of gameplay and turn things into chores.

If you're looking for something meaningful to do with metal, have a think about the player either reconditioning abandoned habitats etc, and/or building thier own.
This might need it's own thread...

More complexity isn't always a bad thing. Realism is not always a bad thing. In general, whenever the game gives us new ways to use commodities, I find that it's fun (using metal to build nav beacon, comm relay etc) or at least interesting (using volatiles for the neutron sniffer).

The point is, that you're CONSTANTLY finding metal after every. single. fight. There is no danger of not having enough. If you could use it to repair hull damage instead of losing additional supplies, that would be kind of a nice, eh? In fact, the fleet management aspect of starsector becomes more interesting and thought provoking the more resources you juggle. If the game is supposed to be about combat, just have it be the combat missions in the main menu.

 I'd like it every commodity in the game had some kind of use besides just being a trade good. So far the ones that do are volatiles, rare metals, metal, supplies, fuel, crew, and heavy equipment. Did I miss any?

29

General Discussion / Re: Some (hopefully) constructive thoughts and comments on V0.9

« on: December 17, 2018, 04:54:02 AM »

No, you're wrong. Other independent colonies like yours would be popping up all the time, at least.  Tonnes of people playing the game maintain colonies and even become more powerful than the existing factions in a few game years.

30

General Discussion / Re: Level scaling is overly agressive and immersion breaking

« on: December 17, 2018, 04:52:01 AM »

well, it's actually not related to level directly, or time itself, but lack of "decay" or any kind of system difficulty offset, makes it looks like level scaling

Huh, didn't quite understand this or the code you posted. You mean it's related to the number of ships you, the player, have destroyed in the game?

there is no logic behind this mechanic, it's immersion breaking to assume, that only player loot derelicts and everyone else just fly around doing nothing

I agree with you there. It's a failure to create a world in which an early game player and a late-game player can both exist, and seek out meaningful challenges.

The conflicting, confused design goals of  the game may be to blame. It's sort of an open world game, and attracts a bunch of open world players who are disappointed with failures of immersion, and it's sort of a combat/ship collecting game, which attracts players who are disappointed with the open world stuff. Now it's sort of a strategy/colonizing game too.