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.

61

Suggestions / Better refit highlight info / Adv. optics consideration (.51a)

« on: March 07, 2012, 01:11:50 PM »

Firstly, hovering the mouse over equipped weapons in refit mode - the info displays fine, but there are problems when you move the mouse over different components, especially when the components are close together. If I hover the mouse over an SRM component, then move it directly over a nearby laser, the info for the SRM will still be displayed until I move the mouse over the *exact center* of the laser. Some components are shaped so that I actually can't get the new info to display at all unless I zoom in and THEN find the center.

It would be great if the info would display and update at the very moment the component slot outline (like the double circles for medium energy) became enlarged from the mouse touching it. It would just be smoother and more user friendly.

Secondly, I've tried playing around a bit with the advanced optics hull mod, and I have to say that it might be overkill on the turret slowing, in some cases. Specifically, point defense lasers, which are already not so great all around, seem to be slowed way too much and can no longer keep up with missiles and even some fighters. The extended range is meaningless when they can't even track the one thing they're supposed to be good against.

This is especially a nuisance if I just want advanced optics for my fixed or larger lasers on higher tech ships, but still want some very meager point defense capabilities, since laser based PD is the only option for many (all?) of them.

62

Suggestions / Re: Add a projectile velocity field to weapon stats?

« on: March 07, 2012, 12:13:49 PM »

I am inclined to very, very strongly agree just based on my experiences with using the hellbore cannon.

Good grief is that a slow moving projectile. Good lucking hitting freakin' anything with it.

63

Bug Reports & Support / Re: 0.51a quicksave crash

« on: March 07, 2012, 11:29:22 AM »

Ah. Thanks for the quick response! Guess I'll have to learn to live without better zooming out in campaign mode for now (not even sure what else devmode actually does!) =)

64

Bug Reports & Support / Re: 0.51a quicksave crash

« on: March 07, 2012, 11:21:26 AM »

This was the whole chunk from the log that had anything to do with saving, altogether:

Code

119765 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Saving to ..\\saves/save_Shepard_6251720336728343738...
122797 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Finished saving
2759812 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Saving to ..\\saves/save_Shepard_6251720336728343738...
2762140 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Finished saving
2762140 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.D  - java.lang.RuntimeException: Found 1 serliazed classes not marked with DoNotObfuscate.
java.lang.RuntimeException: Found 1 serliazed classes not marked with DoNotObfuscate.
	at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager.super(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.A.o00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.super.for.while$super(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.A.super.Ò00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.combat.D.o00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)

There was nothing in the log after that, and everything before was just TextureLoader stuff.

65

Bug Reports & Support / 0.51a quicksave crash

« on: March 07, 2012, 11:03:51 AM »

Vanilla game, no mods, only changed the settings so that devmode = true.

Upon quicksaving for the first time in campaign mode after a clean new install, game crashed. Log excerpt is as follows:

Code

2759812 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Saving to ..\\saves/save_Shepard_6251720336728343738...
2762140 [Thread-6] INFO  com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager  - Finished saving
2762140 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.D  - java.lang.RuntimeException: Found 1 serliazed classes not marked with DoNotObfuscate.
java.lang.RuntimeException: Found 1 serliazed classes not marked with DoNotObfuscate.
	at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.save.CampaignGameManager.super(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.A.o00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.super.for.while$super(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.A.super.Ò00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.combat.D.o00000(Unknown Source)
	at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)

66

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.5a (In Development) - Live Patch Notes

« on: March 02, 2012, 01:31:07 PM »

Stuff

More Stuff

You guys seem to have the right idea. I pulled my suggestions mostly from another game that already had a nicely working system in place, though for boarding, not capturing (Ascii Sector).

I still think it might work well in conjunction with what you are suggesting, but if I had to choose, I'd say you guys are thinking on terms that are better suited for how Starfarer works. In this way, the distinction could just remain disabled=chance to salvage, destroyed=no salvage, but with highly increased chance to accidentally destroy ships in combat with too much damage after they're disabled.

Either way, I want the act of obtaining more and newer ships to carry some REAL weight, with saving up credits to make purchases being a very valid alternative to boarding disabled enemy ships, with its own set of advantages in comparison.

67

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.5a (In Development) - Live Patch Notes

« on: March 02, 2012, 11:46:29 AM »

Sounds really overpowered, even if those weapons were fully neutralized by shields.

Honestly, I would like to see things take a step in the opposite direction, but with something similar to what that guy suggested.

I feel like ships should not be boardable and recoverable AT ALL in regular combat, and at most you should only be able to get salvage from ships that you disable or destroy. I'm iffy on enemy ships even surrendering and thus providing free, fully intact ships for your fleet under any circumstances. It's just too easy.

If anything, I would like to see it changed so that you could only capture enemy ships if you specifically outfitted your own ships with nonlethal, disabling weaponry and fought with the intention of capturing an intact or mostly intact target.

As it stands, it seems to me that it's way too easy to frequently get extra ships without having to build up your own credits, or even do anything particularly special other than count on the luck of the draw. It isn't a problem so far, with how barebones the campaign mode currently is, but I think it will become an issue as more gameplay features are implemented and fleshed out, such as commodity trading and such.

Why would I ever consider investing in trade ships and playing a living interplanetary market to rack up credits as a viable method of progression when I can simply blow crap up willy-nilly and grab some shiny new ships from the smoldering wreckage just by fighting normally?

Well, I still would because I really like that sort of thing, but it would seem a lot more evenly balanced if I had to replace my attack ship's explodey torpedoes with special disabling EMP torpedoes just to have the chance to board and acquire an enemy ship, thus weakening my overall combat effectiveness and placing that ship in particular at greater risk during normal combat.

68

Suggestions / Re: Marines, the good, the better and the best.

« on: March 02, 2012, 11:31:32 AM »

Why stop there?

Downscale marines and make them entirely personalized and customizable.

It shouldn't take that many trained professionals to take over a ship of poorly prepared, nonmilitary, probably mostly unarmed personnel, anyway.

So instead of hundreds, let's have marines counted in the dozens, starting at green rank, and let us customize their armor and weapons and training, and build them up over time. Think x-com (UFO: enemy unknown), but with the actual combat offscreen. Give them random names and let us nickname them, too.

Making us work specifically to outfit our marines in power armor and such to increase their survivability so that they make it to higher ranks would be pretty awesome, and I think it could be all be pulled off without detracting from the main gameplay at all. Also, extra cash sinks are never a bad thing, imo.

69

Suggestions / Re: My long list of constructive criticism, so far

« on: February 27, 2012, 05:59:29 PM »

Given the way many of the discussions I've been reading/participating in, it'd probably be closer to the middle...

Actually, being a fairly attentive forum lurker, I'd say that I've noticed most people either do like or don't mind command points in general. The outlook is generally positive, especially in the cases where Alex has taken the time to explain that it is something they have already tried both ways, and found that the current system works best.

If in truth it was closer to half or more players consistently doing away with command points if given the option, then yes, as a point of good game design I would suspect that the system should probably not work the way it does or even be present.

I don't think this is the case, but if it were, as your scenario would suggest, then that should necessarily be a cause for concern.

As for the rest that isn't hyperbole, all I can say is that if half or more players were consistently frustrated to the point of editing other gameplay mechanics in order to find it enjoyable, then that is indeed also a good indication that there are fundamental flaws in the game's design in each instance.

Flux is an arbitrary limitation to your shields, as to your weapons. Amunitions are a limitation. Credits, crew, fuel, all limitations.

Flux is infinitely renewable during combat in various ways, ammunition is a balance factor for the strengths of the weapons that are limited by it and it is a choice to use them AND there are hull mods to bolster them, credits and crew and fuel are infinitely renewable and the latter two are even customizable with a great level of choice based on the ships in one's fleet.

These do not compare to command points, especially considering command points directly determine how intuitively you can control your very own units within the main area of gameplay.

Please, there is a difference between limitations and RESOURCES.

You seem confused. Command points are a limited resource. You can add an extra couple during combat by capturing control points if you're lucky, determined, or outfitted specifically to excel at doing so, but once used they are gone and you are reduced to relying almost exclusively on the AI within very limited parameters, or taking direct control of one ship at a time. It matters on a case by case basis, and each case has a hard limit. That distinction is important.

In theory.

In practice, I, for one, got used to command point conservation so quickly that I have yet to run out, and almost never use more than half of the beginning allotment. I imagine most people find it this easy in general to manage for the moment. I've never seen it become an issue, but it isn't hard to imagine situations where it could.

It may not BE arbitrary, but it certainly FEELS arbitrary, and it is objectively limiting on one's intuitiveness of control on a strategic level.

In the end, it's merely a point of personal preference. For now, I don't prefer the overarching sense of artificial limitation, but I have a feeling that I will change my mind several times as the game is further developed, and the systems tie in to even more emergent elements of gameplay.

70

Suggestions / Re: My long list of constructive criticism, so far

« on: February 27, 2012, 01:47:08 PM »

...If you put the ability to remove the CP system, then there will be far less feedback and testing with it...

I'd just like to point out that if making command points optional resulted in the vast majority of people choosing not to use them, then that is a good indication that most people do not like the system and thus it probably doesn't belong in this game after all.

I'm the kind of guy who detests these arbitrary limitations in theory, even when they are almost never actually an issue in practice. I will not play a roguelike with hunger mechanics and finite food, for example. I want to, in theory, be able to play forever if I so choose. Likewise, I want to be able to micro to my little OCD heart's content, even in Starfarer.

An option to toggle would probably be for the best. If not, I'll most likely always just mod command points away anyway.

71

Suggestions / Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.

« on: February 27, 2012, 09:16:12 AM »

The Xyphos is not an interceptor from that point of view - it's a heavy fighter.

As a side note, I am very strongly of the opinion that xyphos fighters should not be considered heavy fighters while their singular weapon is a beam weapon. Even a dozen of them isn't going to dent a shield.

Right now, they are at best a defense or support role fighter useful mainly for momentarily distracting or getting the odd lucky hit in from the flank in any manner of skirmish that can be considered "heavy".

Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.

72

Suggestions / Re: New faction, and new stile of combat

« on: February 25, 2012, 10:55:15 PM »

*gibberish* (sic)

What?

73

Suggestions / Re: Stop suicidal AI

« on: February 25, 2012, 10:51:45 PM »

In my campaign game, I have a hyperion class frigate (the best frigate) filled with elite crew, and specifically outfitted for brawling melee combat.

I find that most of the time, when controlled by the AI, my hyperion will speed into combat, not raise shields until the LAST possible moment, sometimes even getting hit head on due to the delay, and then it turns away either to dodge missiles or just to compensate for momentum, and gets nailed from the side or behind due to thinking it has omni shields when it doesn't, while the shields are still powering up.

This makes for extremely short and unreliable combat, especially on the ship classes with low hull/armor and high flux/shield efficiency. Nevermind when they drop shields to cooldown or vent flux while being fired upon instead of getting the hell out of there with their superior speed.

It's a bit more of a nuisance since I can't micromanage in the tactical screen freely due to command point restrictions, otherwise I could just make up for these shortcomings by grouping my ships together and employing flanking maneuvers.

A small frustration, but there it is.

74

Suggestions / Re: Beam weapon sound effects.

« on: February 25, 2012, 10:39:47 PM »

I disagree entirely on this point.

I find the beam sound effects, such as for graviton beams and tactical lasers, to be some of the best.

On the other hand, I rather dislike the pewpew sound of the heavy blaster, which comes off to me as sort of lightweight and almost cartoonish. Too high pitched, maybe, and could use a healthy helping of bass.

Not sure I like the needler sound effects either. I can't quite put my finger on what bothers me about them... perhaps they just remind me too much of when you step on a dart trap in Skyrim.

75

General Discussion / Re: YouTube Lets Play

« on: February 20, 2012, 04:41:45 PM »

It's a very good Let's Play. I like your voice, and you're pretty thorough about the game mechanics.

Seconded, though I only watched the last video. I have to admit though, it was a little painful halfway through with all the avoidable losses and not gaining anything from the battle due to not having enough marines to board the only onslaught that was boardable. If you care, you might want to be less stingy with command points in combat, keep a closer eye on the messages that pop up, and put a much higher priority on taking over the +30 FP objectives ASAP, with enough firepower to keep them held.

I do like how you edited out the extraneous bits and waiting periods in the video though.