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 - Eji1700

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14
General Discussion / Re: what is wrong with trade?
« on: August 20, 2018, 07:48:42 PM »
I like a good bit of trading myself and was a bit little sad as a new customer that it .... doesn't really seem to be a thing.

Totally understand why trading is an icky thing in a lot of games, where it essentially becomes rote repetition. Location A sells product 1, you carry it to Location B to trade it for product 2, then finally Location C and sell your product 2 for insane profits. Then you do it over again.  The thing that makes systems like that terrible are lack of unpredictability...  EV:Nova was absolutely terrible about this, where you could run the same freight loop a few times, hire a freighter, run the loop, hire a bigger freighter, run the loop, and then before you even start doing anything fun in the game you have oceans of cash that you didn't really earn. THAT should be avoided, yes.  But Starsector already has concepts in place to prevent that, i.e. pirates and dynamic economies. Even the fact that in Starsector you have to pay for fuel and supplies acts as an informal trade tariff in its own right, since unlike most similar games we have to pay to move freight around

It seems like trading is a thing that could be in the game and not completely destroy the fun, so long as you're actually competing against other agents for the cargo and so long as the pirates become very interested in what you're up to. A massively profitable trade route should either be temporary (causing a scramble of activity when it opens) or very dangerous (known routes would be ambush bait). Would love to see the 30% trade tariffs reconsidered in light of the otherwise wildly unstable economy, as well as some new missions offered to players. Either one-off "courier this small valuable thing", or bulk freight where the base pay is really pathetic but we get a bonus by the ton for how much freight we arrive with. Or even sign on to a convoy, where we put in some money to help stock the convoy and everybody shares the profits at the end.

Since you mentioned EV:N, did you play before they nerfed the Opal run?  I don't remember the name of the system but the idea was pretty simple.  There were two planets in system, but very far apart (by EV:N standards).  One had opals at a low price, one had them at a high price, so obviously stupid easy trade.

The one catch was that the system was always swarming with high quality large pirates (manticores and the like), so it was supposed to be a death sprint to see if you could manage to protect your fleet whilst running the blockage (rather than shift queue a few jumps and watching the animations play).

In practice you bought and afterburner, jetted around them, and broke the economy faster and harder than normal, first by trading opals for profit, then by trading lots of opals for profit, then by just pirating the pirate ships in the system (which quickly became worth more than the opals when you plundered and sold them), so they nerfed the whole thing.

While obviously demonstrating the flaws with bad trading systems, it shows the idea that I really wish starsector would try to capture.  Trying to evade pirates (something you'd actually have to do in star sector compared to EV:N's watch me jump), smuggle cargo, and still turn a profit. 

The exact same idea (highly profitable in system trade route with dangerous pirates everywhere) already works so much better in star sector just do to it's general design.  There's an actual stealth mechanic, systems are much larger, fleets are much more dangerous, and there's a hell of a lot more interaction possible (although maybe not currently, map skills are mostly stealth or go faster) to trying to get past them.

Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 16, 2018, 02:43:11 PM »
Sounds great, but some small suggestions (mostly cribbed from Endless Space 2's ground combat system):

1. A max invasion cap that can be modified by ship types (troop transports/siege?), modules, skills.

This limits the amount of just "oh i'll raid today, swap out the spare guns, sell all the trash and AI cores from our last run and load up the gun totting hobos we keep in storage".  Fleet composition will actually matter more for serious raids.  No showing up with a cruiser and 4 atlas' full of marines and expecting a quick and easy victory.

2. To piggyback on this, raid stages.  Make it so that it's possible to only partially complete a raid depending on forces, you can then continue the raid (thus leaving your ship in orbit longer) for better results.  This gives the max cap more meaning as you CAN accomplish something with fewer troops, but it'll take more time, while bringing a bunch of troops and enough ships to properly deploy them means you could maybe accomplish your goal in one go.

Edit- just read about getting away from "in orbit holding position tasks" due to error handling stuff.  In that case you could still do something like multiple attempts/tiers with a cd in between.

3. Once you have time as a factor as well as defenses, tactics could be an option.  You've arguably already got 3 (raid, bomb, Bomb Harder) , but given that raid seems like the default attempt you might want something like Aggressive (faster but higher casualties, Best results, worse rep penalties and maybe even noticed even if stealth), cautious (slower, less casualties, worse results), smash and grab (very fast, extreme casualties, only very specific results).

4. Lastly you could consider troop types as an additional modifier (again this only matters if you cap troop deployment).  I'm not thinking anything major, but something simple like:

Base marine.  Good at winning fights and not dying, not great at other objectives. More likely to die than other types (they protect them).  Average rep penalties.
Saboteur- die like flies but very good at accomplishing your goal and tend to cause very high rep penalties.  Work fast.
Infiltrator- don't contribute much at all to fights but also not likely to die.  Not results are eh but very weak rep penalties.

Anyways all of it's just spitballing ideas.  As always i'm just glad the system exists in the first place.  The base game as is is so fun, I just want more reasons to do things with it.

General Discussion / Re: what is wrong with trade?
« on: August 14, 2018, 02:27:54 PM »
"Trading", in the "buy low sell high" sense, is not intended to be profitable.

The reason for this has to do with gameplay patterns. People, even when playing games, will typically go for the easiest option even if that option takes a lot of time. We often call this "grinding". As a result, unless there is some fun gameplay pattern involved in trading what will tend to happen is that players will want to grind money doing it until they can afford to go fight. What is intended is to go fight immediately. This gets you into the core gameplay experience faster and wastes less time doing boring things.

So while people may say they want it "trade" its actually bad for the game in the long run.
While I agree many player will optimize to the point of losing enjoyment, what bugs me is that there's so many systems in the game already to make trading exciting and fun.  You've got a built in smuggling system, you have pirates, you have cargo ships that you can even arm, the idea of running a pirate infested run is something that should be fun (or sneaking a bunch of terrible stuff past system security) is inherently fun.  As would be screwing with the economy to make money (destroying traders/stopping shipments).

The only reason it's not done more is because there's no reward for accomplishing it as the prices are tanked.

Hell the way the game handles the ship economy takes away from a lot of potential fun (and better use for industry skills as well).  Salvageable wrecks should be MUCH less common to encourage faction loyalty, or to reward you for speccing into industry.  Something like low level you'll see more wrecks with d mods, and max level gives you the restore option.  In the meantime you can start making ships sell for a reasonable price as well and allow that as part of the economy because it's not something that will happen by default.

Blog Posts / Re: Pirate Bases, Raids, and Objectives
« on: June 12, 2018, 02:21:53 PM »
Do bases serve economic purpose as well?  I assume so, but you can land/trade etc there just like anywhere else?

Could you form an alliance or up relations with pirates and then use these bases, or smuggle to them, or have your station raid them back?

Just curious what options there will be (and for some of these I'm more curious if that's an eventual maybe, not next patch stuff).

General Discussion / Re: Missile Behavior
« on: June 06, 2018, 02:25:40 PM »
I'm fine with missiles.  I'm also fine retreating my missile ships from combat when they run dry?

Seriously having a few Gryphons for the initial engagement just annihilate anything they fire at and then leave is such a huge combat swing it's not even funny.  Yes you can't leave them on the field, but by that point you've already won.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« on: June 04, 2018, 12:30:09 PM »
Any notable differences between Hegemony and Diktat now?  You user Pathers as an example, but they were already fairly distinct, while I feel Hege/SD fleets are almost colorswaps sometimes.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« on: June 01, 2018, 10:09:44 PM »
How will factions interact with colonies? I see we can build defensive fleets, but will hostile factions actually attack/invade the colony itself, and does this mean that such mechanics are coming to vanilla?

This kind of thing has to happen for defensive fleets to make sense, right? I'm not quite sure how much of it will make it into 0.9a; certainly enough for there to be a point to building a military base, orbital stations, and other defenses. But beyond that, into something like full-fledged invasion-type mechanics? Will have to see how the timing pans out.

Oh of course but i know dev time is a real thing.  The blog posts had mostly been about econ and stations so I wasn't sure how much, if any, of the faction murdering aspect was going to make it into the game.  I'm glad to hear we'll see at least the start of it and maybe more.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.9a (In-Dev) Patch Notes
« on: June 01, 2018, 02:04:39 PM »
I might have missed some of this, but:

How will factions interact with colonies? I see we can build defensive fleets, but will hostile factions actually attack/invade the colony itself, and does this mean that such mechanics are coming to vanilla?

General Discussion / Re: Ship Tier List
« on: May 04, 2018, 06:23:32 PM »

Reasonable and respectful, constructive criticism following the guidelines you yourself made?
Gratuitous jab that doesn't hold water given that the "constructive" criticism is made relative to very skewed and specific solo playstyle requirements. The Tempest isn't worth a S for Megas, but he himself admits not playing the game like most people do, or was intended to.

Well... thats a bit revisionist. Megas wasn't the first person to say that the Tempest isn't S, he just agreed with it and gave his own personal reasons.

I play pretty "normal", though I tend to stop once I have a few capitals because more isn't very interesting yet (fingers crossed for level 3 stations!), and I play on ironman so sometimes suffer nasty losses and need to deal with that. I don't usually use junk ships and industry because I don't find it very fun, though I've done two runs with it. Sometimes I'll do a carrier heavy fleet, other times not. I start with either the usual tutorial start, though sometimes I'll do single frigate for nostalgia. Tempest is not S class for me - its A.

S: Powerful to the point that it breaks the game.  Extremely OP; clearly better than everything else.
A: Unambiguously powerful, enough that it can be considered best-in-class.  Typically the best option for a given role.

Is it powerful to the point it breaks the game? No. If in the early game there's a Tempest in the enemy fleet then I just either set a pair of Talons or a mixed interceptor wing after it, or 2 fastish frigates. It can pick off stragglers so I need to be careful fighting it and not let my frigates fly off alone, but then so could a Medusa to frigates or Aurora to destroyers. If in my fleet a Tempest is a nice powerful ship, but it does not perform any miracles. Phase ships are S class - they perform miracles, even under AI control.

Is it clearly better than everything else? No. Both phase frigates are better at capturing points, better at surviving, better against cruiser and capital threats, better at instantly ganking an enemy when given the 'eliminate command', and better against fighters! The Omen is a better escort and better against fighters. Monitors are tougher and a better escort. Scarabs are (or would be if they weren't impossibly rare) comparable. Lashers are better fodder (kinda stupid, but kinda not - if I need to distract an overwhelming enemy to protect another ship (say in an escape scenario or to save a cruiser from a capital), I would much rather use a disposable Lasher than a rare Tempest).

Is it unambiguously powerful, enough that it can be considered best-in-class? Yes, if we consider the "class" to be a normal gunship frigate. Is it typically the best option for a given role? Yes, if what you want is a normal gunship. But as discussed above it is not the best for all roles.

Going by the rubric the Tempest is a pretty textbook 'A'. Best in class, not game breaking.

Comparing it to the other ranked ships - the only others that were given an A rank are the Onslaught (A- due to vulnerability to flanking), Paragon (A+), and Aurora (A+). Can the Tempest do to frigates what those ships can do to their own classes? For normal situations/builds, yes it can. Does the Tempest deserve a '+' denoting that in situations it can perform at the S level? ... Maybe, but I don't think so. Think about what an elite weapon Paragon or a sabot Aurora with proper fire groups can pull off. The Tempest cannot match that.

I gave the tempest an A+/S rating, so clarification on my thoughts on this:

"Is it powerful to the point it breaks the game?-"
Arguably.  Again my issue is that you should ALWAYS get a tempest, it's easy to get a tempest, and they only get better as you get more because they don't just have to be player piloted, and they're easy to replace.   Not the easiest, but still simple compared to the gain to the point that it feels like if I don't stop myself from using the tempest I will only use the tempest. (my personal nerf would likely just be an OP increase and a rarity bump though). 

They're not much of a threat to the player because the game doesn't throw packs at you, but I think they'd be a huge problem if you created a common early game fleet of say 8 of them as a fast picket running multiple variants.

"Phase ships are S class - they perform miracles, even under AI control.-"
I have never witnessed this.  Could you suggest a build?  I've literally stopped giving the AI phase ships due to the risk/cost in most scenarios. Often at best they're a distraction until they have to retreat, and at worst they screw up and get destroyed by a missile barrage. 

I can believe they do miracles in player hands, but I have a hard time believing they perform meaningful ones.  I can generally kill a whole bunch of ships of any size in an actual battle with a tempest, and I can generally do the same with a phase ship.  I sometimes find the tempest easier to succeed with simply because it's easier to execute and stays in the fight longer (and again, just sending an ion pulse drone after the proper targets is easy and very powerful). 

Again I see no point in who can 1v1 a paragon or some other kind of comparison better because it's not a realistic or common situation.   Wiping out several capital ships and cruisers in quick succession in a real fight is, and it's something they both do more than well enough to the point that figuring out who's the best (almost certainly phase ships), no longer matters because it doesn't actually affect play anymore.

"Both phase frigates are better at capturing points, better at surviving, better against cruiser and capital threats, better at instantly ganking an enemy when given the 'eliminate command', and better against fighters!"-
So obviously I don't see most of this given I don't see the AI doing anything great with them.  I'll gladly test though. 

The only two of these I'd comment on are 1. Capturing points, at which point i feel certain phase ships are better, but again not in any meaningful way from what i've seen. They both get to the point fast, both hold well, both better than anything else in its size.  One is easier to find and sure as hell seems less suicidal in AI hands.  2. Fighters- Fighters seem to slaughter my AI phase ships.  They hover around them, waste their flux, and then get the murdered.

I will also point out that one of the reasons i put it on the line with an S tier is because it's very simple to mass tempests.  If you mass paragons you'll break the game, but it's not realistic and by the time you've done that you should expect to break things.  Massing phase ships is also hard.  Massing tempests feels much much easier.

General Discussion / Re: Ship Tier List
« on: May 02, 2018, 07:40:12 PM »
And that's why I will not be finishing my tier list.

You should.  Tier lists are always argued (and I think the metrics you were using were more than fine).  Ignore the detractors and finish it out if you want.  If RL is a problem ,well things happen, but it's a net gain for the community and the people who want to discuss it if you finish.

Personally ignoring actual in game scenarios for hypotheticals seems like a poor metric.  The number of times i've need to solo a paragon in a frigate is literally 0.  The number of times i've had 4+ tempests (which is about how many you get for one hyperion if I recall right), tear things apart is many.  Sure the hyperion can alpha things out until it runs out of CR or you screw up, but I don't think that's a linear scale.  After some point it hits the "yes its good in player hands" line and sorta falls off because many ships are, and in much more common scenarios than 1v1 vs a paragon.

The main reason to deploy civilians is auto-resolving pursuits, where it is completely safe and when player does not want to drain CR of proper warships.  The CR of civilian ships are untapped resources that are rarely used.

Aside from that, they can rarely be useful to boost initial Nav/ECM numbers, especially in a fight against a lone battlestation that is unable to attack anything beyond its reach.

That said, I agree that civilians are primarily stat sticks, which seems a bit annoying.  I like to call them loads for having less burn speed than most warships of their size class.  "But... burn speed of battlecruisers is faster than battleships!  Who cares?!  I need to bring this slowpoke superfreighter or supertanker slower than a battleship to a fringe system where killer monsters full of treasure are, kill them, then haul back lots of loot."

I mean hauling the loot makes sense, but map movement in general  The framework for a really deep system is there (burn speed, different abilities, sensor range, etc), but right now is sorta just that..a framework.    Outposts will help a lot with this, but also make tankers even more pointless (small refuling stations and the like).  It's why i'm hoping trading is given a little more point, so that you wind up wanting to protect and move large quantities between two points, which would maybe make the super shippers more than just an in world AI thing.

Hell even pirating them feels pretty bleh (easy to catch, easy to kill, not that rewarding?)

I understand the problem, but back when ships had bigger fuel capacity (or worst, when there was no hyperspace), most non-combat vessel were useless. They brought flavour to non-player fleet, but that's it.
Considering your point Megas, I wonder if stating the max ship number in player fleet to only consider the combat ship would help. In this case, your fleet will be full of dram, and your speed would be stated only by your largest combat ship
I mean, as the game is right now, almost all vanilla non combat vessels are passive upgrades.  You never ever see them, or think about them, it's just literally "oh right need more cargo/fuel, better buy one".  The only exception to this being the quasi combat freighters like the Gemini and Mule, which feels like a huge waste of sprites.

There's still only a few exceptions among the modded ships, where really you just have combat tankers/freighters for the most part.  I'd really like to see them get more of a fleet purpose at the very least (sorta like salvage platforms and it'd be nice if there were ships that lowered refit times in space), and I'd love if you could find a reason to occasionally deploy them, or just see them in combat or care about their refit screen.

General Discussion / Re: Ship Tier List
« on: April 20, 2018, 06:19:42 PM »
I think anything more than a general weapon tier list isn't really worth the overall effort because availability is a big factor at the end of the day.  Knowing how to combine them is often a lot more important than "here's one weapon that's crazy good!".  There's some exceptions (sabots come to mind, and harpoons are almost always good), but I think getting into the weeds of it is just going to lead to a lot of frustration.

To me you basically have 3 metrics.  How strong  is it, how easy is it to find, how easy is it to use?

How strong is it- Whooole lot of factors here. Not just raw power but efficiency as well.  Sabots/most fighters are obviously very strong, while something less obvious like..i dunno...graviton beams, can still be quite good in the right situation.

How easy it to find- if you're only getting them off of corpses and rarely in the shop I think that matters.  Scarcity is a factor in game.

How easy is it to use- this ranges from stuff like torpedoes where it can literally be hard to land a proper hit, to certain weapons which just have difficult to meet demands (a plasma cannon for example requires a large energy, has travel time, tons of OP, and gobbles flux).  Antimatter blasters also come to mind.  On the other end of the spectrum you're basically looking at things like LRM/Salamanders which you just put on autofire and forget about while throwing in any slot that'll take it.

I think grading weapons on those sorts of factors (like a grade in each category) is going to give you a much better idea of how the weapons lie rather than trying to break down individual stats or find a way to compare across all metrics (which is very difficult).

General Discussion / Re: Ship Tier List
« on: April 15, 2018, 03:37:48 AM »
Just going to throw my thoughts in because I was doing something like this anyways:

First thing, Cost and OP and to a small extent availability should be factored in (how easy can I mass this, and does that change anything about it basically).


Astral- I'd give it an A- but whatever.  That special ability is so insanely good.

Atlas/other cargo/fuel ships- It bothers me that trading in this game isn't really a playstyle (even illegal smuggling) because you can pretty much mark every single Cargo/fuel ship as a passive upgrade and then MAYBE care about how fast they go.

Legion- I'd probably move it to an A.  It's always good to have since fighter/bomber support will always cover weaknesses and it'll still delete the hell out of ships in AI hands.

Onslaught- I'd drop it to a B/B+.  Solid, reliable, good, but nothing amazing.  I'd take the legion over it every time.

Dominator- Solid C in my eyes, but maybe i'm building them wrong.  For the OP/Cost I almost always want to bring something else, even if it's just more frigates/destroyers.

Gryphon- AN odd one, but an easy B in my eyes.  In the players hands it's just broken to the point of being silly and by far the best alpha strike hull I've found (fly in, delete a few things, retreat, fly something else).  In AI hands it's not stellar but still one of the best hulls for turning overloads into kills if you load it up with harpoon pods.

Mora- B+, the fact that it punches WAY above its weight and is very easy to obtain and deploy.  A single mora early game is a great flagship or support, and you can actually get a fleet of these quick and seriously wreck shop as long as you find half decent bombers.

Starliner- no really...whats the point of this?

Venture- C.  It is without a doubt the worst combat cruiser in the game, but what it really is is the poor mans heavy destroyer.  The default loadout makes a great escort ship as it'll pop shields and punish with it's missiles and do pretty great PD thanks to the drones and flak.  I'm generally happy to pick one up in the early game.


Buffalo MKII (all versions): I hear you can do things with them but in a game where the AI sees you with no shields and just nukes you with hapoons this has certainly felt like a pretty solid F everytime i've ever bothered. Maybe an LRM platform, but then I could just not do that.

Condor: D+.  The + for being the "i need a carrier yesterday" option for difficult starts.  I don't think you ever wind up keeping it.

Drover: B-.  Might have to do with my AI struggles. They're a little too good at getting close for my tastes in AI hands and lack the punch to make that safe.  That said it's actually a very fun combat carrier.

Enforcer: C?  I look at the loadout and keep thinking it should be better, but I've almost never been impressed with them.

Gemini- C- for being a way to turn your cargo into something you aren't terrified to deploy and basically a better condor.

Hammerhead- B.  I'll always take a hammerhead as long as I can get the tech to kit it out half decent, which is pretty easy given how flexible it is.

Harbringer- I find it very hard to judge phase ships because due to their cost, rarity, OP, and drawbacks i'm almost always too worried to even let the AI touch them.  In human hands like most phase ships its a crazy good alpha strike ship.

Medusa- B-.  If only because it's harder to find/equip and a little more fragile than a hammerhead.

Mule- D+ I want combat trader to be a playstyle so bad, but it just feels like pulling teeth.  Maybe i'm building it wrong, but so far I've never been impressed.  The + is because sometimes early game you just want a freighter than can fight, but unlike the gemini I wind up a lot more worried my cargo capacity might explode.

Sunder- B.  This and the hammerhead are the Ryu and Ken of the game to me.  A large energy + its ship system on a destroyer has some very efficient burst options for the OP, and it's super easy to make an AI variant that'll handle itself and still clean up.


Afflictor: no idea.  I've almost never gotten one.

Brawler (normal) - B.  Damper field is just so wonderful.

Brawler (TT) - C.  Maybe i've been doing it wrong, but I find these things to be made of paper and rarely if ever able to justify their slots due to flux issues.

Centurion- C-, at least that's what it's felt like the few times i've tried to use it.  Seems like an escort ship, but man color me unimpressed.  Damper field is still great, but unlike the brawler it's just not a threat.

Cerberus- D.  If star sector were a Saturday morning cartoon the villains henchmen would fly these.

Houd- D. Or these...for variety.

Hyperion- Can't really class it.  From what i've seen it's no where near worth it in the hands of the AI and fails critically in every possible way, even with builds that don't really take advantage of it's nature.  In human hands it's a very expensive way to get to delete a few ships before leaving.  I suspect it's really more of a B since it's just so damn impractical when you can accomplish most of the same effect that it has with other, less interesting, ships.

Lasher- B.  The hammerhead of the frigate world.

Monitor- D.  Might just be me again but this is like a Brawler/Mora, but with shields....oh and unlike those ships you never actually care if it's still alive.  The mora is a real threat and the brawler is a big enough thorn that you're often stuck trying to avoid it since killing it is a pain.  I mostly just ignore monitors and feel that it's gone the same way when i've used them.

Mudskipper MK.II- D+.  ONLY because if you can get a mass of them things start to get silly.  Probably an F and i'm just too excited about dumb gimmicks.  Especially when you consider that almost every large ballistic weapon EXCEPT the gauss is even more terrible on it.  The gauss at least lets you mass them on escort on a carrier so they can provide fire support from relative saftey.  Everything else gets them in firing range which means they're a great way to get rid of all those extra large ballistic weapons you don't want taking up space.  I also never found any medium that was all that impressive.

Omen- A  The Emitter is crazy powerful, extra so on a maneuverable frigate hull.  The only reason it's not a + is because it shares weaknesses similar to phase ships in that i get a little worried giving it to the AI.  Still fairs way better than them though and can just murder  its way through a ton of OP.

Scarab- C.  I think I used it once and while fun I was heavily unimpressed.  From a strategy standpoint it just didn't feel very good.  From a "fun to fly" standpoint it's an A.

Shade- another phase ship, another hard to say.

Tempest- A+/S-.  I will always take a tempest.  Always.  They do anything and everything and they do it all well, and a huge part of that is because in human hands they're crazy and AI hands it's hard to screw up having an Ion pulse drone.

Vigilance- C+.  I don't actually hate them but I often wish I had something else.

Wayfarer- D. I feel like if this game supported the millenium falcon playstyle, this would be that ship.  It doesn't, so meh.

Wolf- B-.  Flexible, powerful, reliable.  My only issue being they're harder to find and outfit than a lasher, and with a bad layout they're awful in AI hands. 

Suggestions / Re: Full AI Weapons Control
« on: March 30, 2018, 07:29:53 AM »
There were only 4 weapon groups at one point; then there were 5.

Hopefully vanilla adds a keybind for the next version, because as others have said, handing over full weapons control to the AI can be very useful at times. :)

I think this is just a case of a working failsafe for a non-existent group being selected.

As far as this vs what the OP is asking for, I think there's an important distinction here. Setting everything on autofire is not the same as giving the AI full weapon control. If you set everything on autofire and just focused on piloting/shields, it would perform extremely poorly - you'd flux out quickly, and it would dump all missiles instantly.

There are designs where I want it to do exactly that, but will pilot the ship because I want it to do that from a specific angle (and thus holding fire until the right moment is important).  I've made alpha strike builds that I really wish I could just have on "hold fire" and "nuke everything" modes once I pilot them into position, since the extra click is pointless for such a build.  Ditto on certain laser boats or other ships.

Most obnoxiously, carriers.  I like piloting carriers like the mora, but especially early game when I can't afford the build I want, I usually wind up with weaponry I want to always fire.  I still want to pilot the ship so it doesn't get to far away from the fleet and so it gets all my characters "piloted ship only" bonuses, but I really don't want to be forced to remember to spam fire that one turret or salamnader that I couldn't put on autofire.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14