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 - Gabrybbo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
Discussions / Re: Happy Christmas everybody!
« on: December 24, 2012, 03:34:00 PM »
Aaaaaaaaaand... Happy Christmas everybody! Woooooo! :D

32
Suggestions / Re: Fleet stances
« on: December 24, 2012, 11:11:14 AM »
Isn't this a little bit like the commands we have now? Intercept gives ships tunnel vision as they target a single ship (aggressive). Engage has ships engaging the most "convenient" target near the Engage order (balanced). Harass has ships ships doing just that: staying as far out of enemy weapon range as they can while hitting them with any large range weaponry they have (defensive).

Well... It's close, but not quite the same thing, i'm thinking of a layer of behaviour that is independent from orders.

Instead of "stances" we can see these as 3 fleetwide orders:
One to command your ships to be more aggressive while carrying out your orders;
One to tell them to be more careful;
One to return to a balanced behaviour.

It's not something that you'd have to remember (obviously you'd need a quick tutorial to show how are these used and how can affect, both positively and negatively, the flow of battle and your ships) and the interactions with the different personalities are pretty much natural: if a captain is aggressive you can expect him not to be extremely careful even when you give him such order, and vice versa.

33
Suggestions / Re: Fleet stances
« on: December 24, 2012, 07:44:05 AM »
Yes, I understand your point of view, arcibalde. I'll try to explain better my point.

If Bob is a captain with suicidal tendencies he will usually (which means in the balanced stance) be very, very aggressive. If I, the admiral of the fleet, order him to keep a more conservative behaviour he will do what BOB thinks is a more conservative behaviour, so he may still be aggressive, but he will be forced to not put his ship in too much risk. He's NOT becoming cautious, he's just trying his best to restrain his tendency of ramming enemy ships while shooting every last bullet he has.

Every captain will obey your order of keeping a general behaviour, but each captain's personality will affect what is the final behaviour for his ship.
Let's make some examples of what i'm trying to say:
personality -> stance -> behaviour

Cautious -> defensive -> very cautious, he will avoid most ships, even weaker ones, and will try to keep his flux low to be faster.
Cautuous -> balanced -> keeps distance from bigger ships, avoiding them as much as possible, but fights with the other ones. Retreats if his flux reaches high levels or the enemy gets reinforcements.
Cautious -> aggressive -> he will try to engage enemy ships (even larger ones) for longer times, but he won't ever overextend looking for a kill and will retreat as soon as he takes some damage.

Suicidal -> defensive -> tries to kill his opponent, but retreats if his ships is being overwhelmed by the enemy.
Suicidal -> balanced -> retreats only if his ship is barely functional, but otherwise he will always charge into battle.
Suicidal -> aggressive -> never retreats and will fight to the death (his, probably).

As you see, combining different stances with different personalities makes quite a difference in the end.  :)

Still, in the end it could be not worth it, but i'm throwing this idea to the forum exacly to see that.  :D

34
Suggestions / Fleet stances
« on: December 24, 2012, 06:08:19 AM »
I remember seeing a discussion, not much time ago, where it was stated by alex that it's not easy for the AI to decide whether the use of an extremely aggressive tactic may be useful, so it is better to have a more conservative AI as it makes the effects of an error less devastating and frustrating for the player.

So, what about the ability to set a stance for your fleet while in battle?
A "defensive" stance makes ships much more cautious and forces a more conservative use of flux. Less losses overall, but on the flip side your fleet takes more time to kill an opponent and you run the risk of losing capture points as your ships may prefer to retreat or wait for reinforcements instead of risking a confrontation. Can be dangerous to use if your ships are overpowered by the enemy, but allows you to preserve your forces until your Dominator arrives at the frontline to lead a full-scale assault.
A "balanced" stance is basically what we have now: the AI tries his best to kill the enemy, but doesn't try to charge alone in a swarm of bullets to blow up a single damaged Talon. This is also the default stance.
An "aggressive" stance makes your ships stay in combat a lot more, even when taking hits, and forces a much more free use of all their weaponry and systems. You get to destroy weakened enemies in a very small amount of time and you slow down a lot your opponent, but if the stance is mantained for too long the damage report could be really severe (assuming you manage to win with damaged and nearly overloaded ships).

Obviously as Officers will be released their personalities will severely impact how your fleet acts in every stance: a suicidal commander during a defensive stance might still chase after ships and if you select the aggressive stance he may try and burndrive into enemies.  :)

Usually i like having an option like this when i'm playing any game that involves strategy without micromanagement, as my general approach is to rush out to take a lot of vantage points denying them to the enemy and then slowly retreat while I assemble my forces. This translates in an aggressive stance followed by a defensive one and finally by a balanced or aggressive one.

35
Suggestions / Re: Reconsider Fleetpoints
« on: December 24, 2012, 06:01:19 AM »
Welcome to the forum!  ;)

You're right, with 3 heavy fighters you can't take down an Onslaught, but you can catch 3 points and deploy the rest of your fleet while the enemy slowly moves his battleship towards you.

Fleet cost alone is not indicative of firepower capabilities: heavy fighters are good as point cappers, can hunt down frigates and provide a priceless help in taking down interceptors and destroyers. But alone against a large opponent they are dead, it's their main weakness.  :)

Also, remember that there are several "categories" of fighter crafts:
- interceptors: they move quickly through the battlefield to catch small ships and bombers before they can do damage.
- heavy fighters: they can devastate interceptors with superior armament and endurance and can damage frigates severely, but they're slower and their armament is not designed to harm anything more than a destroyer.
- assault fighters: these guys bear a lot of guns and armor to devastate enemy ships, but are vulnerable to faster and smaller crafts.
- support fighters: they support (duh) ships and bombers with armament designed to destroy missiles and help bring down enemy shields.
- bombers: they drop bombs (double-duh) and torpedoes on enemy destroyers and above. Devastating, but usually with very little armament for self defense and slow speed.

If fighters were cheaper (FP wise) they'd be too powerful, right now they have their role in the battlefield, just not the protagonist role.  :)

36
Discussions / Re: So I just installed Windows 7
« on: December 24, 2012, 05:31:14 AM »
It's my first time actually owning anything with Windows installed, so I could use any tips for making sure everything runs smoothly and virus free.

Let's see, here is the list of free programs that i install on every new PC running Windows:

- Avast! as antivirus. You just have to register with a mail and confirm the registration every year i think.
- Comodo as firewall. Has a lot of good features for a free program.
- CCleaner. This little program allows to manage your installed programs (better than the windows uninstaller), to clean temporary files and to do some other nice thingies.  :)
- Malwarebytes anti-malware, even with a firewall and an antivirus you may end up having malware in your pc (via infected devices or malicious links on the interwebz). Just do a complete scan every month, delete the files that it finds and you'll be ok.


Aaaaand... that's pretty much it really.  :)

37
I know, i'm terrible at titles.  :P

I just noticed that I won't get the various skill perks if I do as follows:
1 - I deploy any ship other than my flagship;
2 - I transfer command to a deployed ship;
3 - I deploy my flagship and transfer command back to her;

It happened using Uomoz's Corvus, but I guess it happens with vanilla too, here's a screenshot:
Spoiler
[close]
In this case I should have 20% hard flux dissipation, flux speed boost up to 25% flux, flux speed boost +25su/s, but I have none of those.  :)

38
Suggestions / Re: Tachyon Lance Discussion
« on: December 20, 2012, 04:53:30 AM »
I gave my idea a try, unfortunately there's no "burst duration" option, so i decided to use a continuous beam with 250 kinetic damage + 200 emp (i might tone this down to 100 or even less than that), 12 seconds of chargeup, 600 flux/s (which also could be a bit too much, maybe 550 is better) and an excellent turn rate of 4 (which means it is as slow as I am).

So, here we go with the testing:

I tried 4 of these on a Paragon with max vents and caps... Surprisingly, she can take down other ships on her own, but she needs a lot of time and nearly maxes out her flux capacity. And this was against an Eagle.
Then, i tried it on a Sunder... Well, the HEF damage bonus makes it nearly too good, but that ship cannot support nearly any other weapons, both OP- and flux-wise. A frigate-killer, but only if left alone.
Finally, tried it on an Odissey. Unimpressed: a long range support weapon is, as intended, not the best choice for a battlecruiser. Simply doesn't have enough burst damage to be effective in a run and gun role.

Conclusions until now: very good at long range support; inefficient as heck as an assault weapon.
Basically the TL is now a long-range graviton beam, excellent at saturating the enemy flux dissipation, thus providing easier targets for other ships.
But, the 12 seconds of chargeup force you to be careful and conservative: you can't swat fighters and frigates with it, as it takes quite some time to do enough damage to kill and there's the risk of hitting your own ships if you miss even for a couple of seconds.
And if you stop firing, you have to charge it all the way up again. :P

Here's the line of the weapon_data.csv file, if you want to give it a try:
Code
Tachyon Lance,tachyonlance,3,25000,2500,250,,200,25,4,32,,,KINETIC,,600,12,2,,,,,,,12500,,,,,,27

39
Suggestions / Re: Tachyon Lance Discussion
« on: December 20, 2012, 03:01:49 AM »
Just thinking... The main problem is that the old lance is game-breakingly strong against anything smaller than a destroyer.
But, the main advantage of small ships is mobility. So the lance should have a hard time hitting such targets.

instead of a short burst with high damage, why not a longer one with a lot less dps but more damage overall?
To damage a ship you'd need to keep her under fire for some time to deal enough damage, so smaller ships have the chance of moving out of the beam and face only a portion of the damage.

Yes, ships with high dissipation are less prone to die against it, but after all this weapon is designed to be a support weapon, not an assault one. What do you think?

40
Suggestions / A few UI suggestions
« on: December 18, 2012, 11:34:26 AM »
Hi everybody!  :)

When venting flux, it would be nice to see not only the seconds remaining until it finishes venting, but also the tenths of a second. It's not really needed, but it'd fit with the fast pace of the battles and could actually be more useful than it is now.

Also, i'd love to see a countdown when using ship systems that have a cooldown, maybe shown at the right of where we have the system's status.

Speaking of system statuses i'd add (to the current "active" and "ready") "charging" and "inactive", the latter written in red as it means that the system is out of uses. I'm convinced there's a better word than inactive, but I can't come up with one.  :P

41
General Discussion / Re: Should ammo supply ships be put in officially?
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:43:05 AM »
...

The concept is good, but as said by arcibalde the ships don't last long enough for a resupply. Also, a per-shot cost can be frustrating as the AI may end up wasting valuable Hellbore/HVD/amblaster shots into space or enemy shields. Also, a per-shot cost is applicable mostly on ballistic weaponry, with only a few exceptions.  :)

Maybe a per-weapon upkeep cost can be implemented: so even if you have a Heavy Autocannon you may choose to use an Arbalest because it's cheaper in the long run. And making this a cost per-day (which can represent both maintenance and ammo) avoids AI issues and annoyances.
OP and credit cost shouldn't be the only things to consider when choosing wheter to use a weaker or a stronger variant of the same weapon, at least imo.  ;)

42
Suggestions / Re: High Energy Focus - auto-deactivate would be nice
« on: December 13, 2012, 03:08:58 AM »
I had an idea about another possible variant of the HEF:
Basically, I reduced the energy weapons range by 50% while giving them 50% more damage and adding 70% damage to shields.
Also, to counter the fact that PD is made nearly useless by the range reduction i gave beam weapons a flat 200 bonus to range (so only PD really benefits from it).

Basically, this forces the ships into close range if they want the 50% damage bonus, exposing them to easier overloads given the reduced efficiency of the shields.

Here's the code if you want to try it out:
Code
package data.shipsystems.scripts;

import com.fs.starfarer.api.combat.MutableShipStatsAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.plugins.ShipSystemStatsScript;

public class HighEnergyFocusStats implements ShipSystemStatsScript {

public static final float DAMAGE_BONUS_PERCENT = 50f;
public static final float RANGE_MALUS_PERCENT = 50f;
public static final float EXTRA_DAMAGE_TAKEN_PERCENT = 70f;
//public static final float TURRET_SPEED_BONUS_PERCENT = 100f;
public static final int BEAM_RANGE_BONUS = 200;

public void apply(MutableShipStatsAPI stats, String id, State state, float effectLevel) {

float bonusPercent = DAMAGE_BONUS_PERCENT * effectLevel;
stats.getEnergyWeaponDamageMult().modifyPercent(id, bonusPercent);

float rangeMalusPercent = RANGE_MALUS_PERCENT * effectLevel;
stats.getEnergyWeaponRangeBonus().modifyPercent(id, -rangeMalusPercent);
stats.getBeamWeaponRangeBonus().modifyFlat(id, BEAM_RANGE_BONUS);

float damageTakenPercent = EXTRA_DAMAGE_TAKEN_PERCENT * effectLevel;
stats.getShieldDamageTakenMult().modifyPercent(id, damageTakenPercent);

//stats.getWeaponTurnRateBonus().modifyPercent(id, TURRET_SPEED_BONUS_PERCENT);
//stats.getBeamWeaponTurnRateBonus().modifyPercent(id, TURRET_SPEED_BONUS_PERCENT);
}
public void unapply(MutableShipStatsAPI stats, String id) {
stats.getEnergyWeaponDamageMult().unmodify(id);
stats.getEnergyWeaponRangeBonus().unmodify(id);
stats.getBeamWeaponRangeBonus().unmodify(id);
stats.getShieldDamageTakenMult().unmodify(id);
//stats.getBeamWeaponTurnRateBonus().unmodify(id);
//stats.getWeaponTurnRateBonus().unmodify(id);
}

public StatusData getStatusData(int index, State state, float effectLevel) {
float bonusPercent = DAMAGE_BONUS_PERCENT * effectLevel;
float damageTakenPercent = EXTRA_DAMAGE_TAKEN_PERCENT * effectLevel;
float rangeMalusPercent = RANGE_MALUS_PERCENT * effectLevel;
if (index == 0) {
return new StatusData("energy weapon damage +" + (int) bonusPercent + "%", false);
} else if (index == 1) {
return new StatusData("Energy weapon range -"+(int) rangeMalusPercent + "%", false);
} else if (index == 2) {
return new StatusData("Shield efficiency -" + (int) damageTakenPercent + "%", true);
}
return null;
}
}

I know, the numbers are not that balanced right now, but what do you think of the "less range, more damage dealt and received" idea? :)

43
Suggestions / Re: An idea to make EMP more useful.
« on: December 12, 2012, 02:45:57 PM »
The EM emitter is powerful, but that's the only useful one out of all of them.  Salamanders are pathetic, Ion Cannons are wasteful, Lances are wasteful, and most other weapons just have EMP as a sort of 'side' thing.

Actually, EMP is intended to be used as support. Or, at least, that's what I get from the game right now.  :)

Salamanders are very dangerous: not the missile itself, but the fact that even if only one hits, the target is in great danger as its weapons and/or engines are out for a while. And while this is true especially against ships with front shields, even against omni-shielded ships those nasty things are useful: unless that ship has a lot of pd, she's gonna have to choose whether to use the shield to block your salamanders or your bullets/lasers, giving you a chance to hit directly the ship.
The Buffalo MK1 is a great example of this. Her tactic is simple: shoot all the salamanders; force the enemy to turn away its shield; strike with the amblaster. It works, if the Buffy doesn't get blown to pieces in the meantime.  ;D

Ion Cannons received a good buff in the latest update in terms of flux/s and range, but what puts me off is that you have to use those personally, otherwise the AI will just fire the bloody thing into an enemy's shield and max out its flux for nothing. >.>  But still, very effective weapon if used at the right time and a good addition to many setups (especially anti-fighter ones) if you have some OPs and a small slot to spare.

Lances are quite "meh" right now: I don't feel the need for them, they have a very specific role (EMP fire support) but require a big sacrifice in terms of OPs and slots and they are useful only in certain situations. It's just like the Guardian PD right now: good at its role, but with other weapons performimg better in many more situations you have a hard time justifying their use. I'd really like to see a return of the "overpowered" Lances we had a while ago: that could actually be balanced by increasing their rarity, cost (both OP and credit-wise) and requirements (flux-wise).

EMP damage also makes HVDs and Mjolnirs good weapons against both shields and armor, which is a rarity among ballistic weapons.




Basically, I disagree with the fact that EMP damage is not so well designed. Instead I agree that sometimes it's not so well implemented and can feel a lot useless, but there's plenty of time to balance out things in this regard.  :)

44
Suggestions / Re: Two Unrelated Suggestions
« on: December 08, 2012, 03:15:21 PM »
Just a very quick note: you can select an otherwise-unused group. So if you have 4 groups, pressing 5 lets all 4 groups autofire.
Talking about this, could the "all groups autofire" command be bound to a key like the one just at left of the "1" key (for me it's "\", I don't know about other layouts)?
At the moment if we use all 5 groups we can't have all of them on autofire. :/
It's not that important, but something that I always forgot to suggest. :)

45
Suggestions / Re: in-game custom ship builder?
« on: December 07, 2012, 01:23:22 AM »
...you can be assured that whatever comes out of the dev-oven will be fantastic and delicious. And it will also include frosting and sprinkles.

This goes directly in my signature.  ;D


Back to the suggestion: i doubt that we'll see an official shape-library, it's something that it's likely going to be done by the community rather than the developers, at least not anytime soon.  :)
The stat menu can be a good thing, but we have already a community-made balancing tool somewhere in the modding resources.  ;)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6