Fractal Softworks Forum
April 22, 2018, 01:20:55 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: New blog post: Minefields (03/25/18); The Circle Can’t Be Trusted: Drawing Battlestations (03/14/18); Starsector 0.8.1a is out!
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: April 21, 2018, 11:17:08 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by TaLaR
You can also set them both in the same group in alternating fire, because the AI is able to fire a single weapon or both from such grouping.

Doesn't seem to help - it's about as slow as switching between 2 groups. It still can't fire anywhere near simultaneously (which is what it needs to do once enemy flux is high).

In fact I did not notice any practical difference in behavior of single alternating group (auto-piloted) vs AI opponent variant with 2 separate groups (the only difference is which weapons are highlighted as currently selected).

 on: April 21, 2018, 11:09:41 PM 
Started by Cyan Leader - Last post by Tartiflette
You can "Hide hullmods that can't be installed" in the selection screen for just that purpose.

 on: April 21, 2018, 11:06:55 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Tartiflette
You can also set them both in the same group in alternating fire, because the AI is able to fire a single weapon or both from such grouping.

 on: April 21, 2018, 10:55:21 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by TaLaR
This seems to also break scenario where faster ship wins slightly in every engagement, but needs to retreat-vent after (since taking armor/hull damage allows victim to somewhat recover position in terms of flux war and I do not want to trade armor/hull).
Which is a very common thing I do, since faster and smaller ships usually simply can't win against a larger opponent in single engagement (at acceptable cost).

100 bonus is also really a lot. I don't think I'd be able to maneuver around several enemies like that with Medusa for example. Or even most frigate vs DE scenarios.

I think it gives too much advantage to slow and heavy ships or side with numeric advantatge. Basically, every engagement against larger opponent is like getting pushed by a super-maneuverable Onslaught (unlike it's current straight and fixed burn).

Near instant nature of boost (no need to wait flux to drop) also raises difficulty bar for correctly using it (both player and AI).

And I guess, I just like the fact that even after you lose engagement round flux-wise, it's not the end as long as you can orderly disengage. To me the wide gap between barely a win and completely overwhelming an opponent doesn't seem like a bad thing.

 on: April 21, 2018, 10:43:57 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Dark.Revenant
That places even more stress on the AI threat assessment capabilities, since you'd be increasing the risk and the reward.  If a friendly ship messes up and overextends, it has very little recourse other than to hope allied ships swoop in to bail it out.  Bailing out said allied ship also runs the danger of causing a chain reaction wherein your entire fleet just kamikazes into the other one.

It's also a rather difficult mechanic to properly communicate to the player.  Currently, it's just "you have 0 flux? you get to do 50 units faster".  Simple, but effective.

 on: April 21, 2018, 10:34:39 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by TaLaR
Example variant:
  • Hammerhead: Heavy Needler, Heavy Mauler, ITU, Hard Shields, Flux distributor, 20 vents, 20 caps. Needler and Mauler are in separate weapon groups.

Problem: AI can't set most weapons in hardpoint groups to autofire (it can do so only for beams like Tac or Graviton). And when it imitates manual control like player, switching between groups is very slow. So they never fire simultaneously.
While the best thing to do as player is setting Needlers on auto and controlling Mauler manually (except when ship system is active - then just autofire away).

Band-aid solution is to put them into single group but:
  • This makes efficient manual control impossible (if I switch ship mid-combat, or AI tries to manage it's flux)
  • AI will try to 'manually' fire at Mauler range, mostly wasting Needler shots if target is too far. Player can somewhat fix it by setting group to autofire (still worse than best scenario above)

 on: April 21, 2018, 10:15:48 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Alex
While we're here, was thinking about what sort of gameplay mechanic would help deal with ships taking an unnecessarily long time to take down. For example, if a ship keeps losing the flux battle on each engagement, but only takes minimal damage each time and is able to back off, then cutting down the number of such engagements wouldn't much change the final outcome.

So, here's a thought I had; wanted to run it by you all and see if anything jumps out as being a problem. Not something I'm committed to doing by any stretch; more a thought experiment at this point.

Let's say the 0-flux boost had the following changes:

* half applies when shield/phase cloak is off
* half applies when weapons and fighters are not firing/pulled back
(so, no tie at all to flux level; in-fiction idea is diverting shield/weapon power to engines, just a different take on it)
* total bonus possibly increased, to somewhere not above 100
* same bonus as before to turn rate etc
* and here's the big one: the top speed bonus only applies to forward speed

So if you're going forward, you receive the full bonus. As soon as you let go of the gas and turn, the bonus will go down. You can strafe sideways at about half the bonus, and going backwards gives no bonus at all.

The goal here would be to allow a flux-war-winner to push their advantage. If a ship does not have allies to fall back to, it has to either 1) win the flux war, or 2) take a lot of punishment after losing it, either having to vent under fire or continuing to fight from a flux disadvantage, assuming the enemy is able to hold fire on weapons/drop shields and pursue. Or, I suppose, 3) be fast enough that they can run away anyway and 3b) turn tail and run, which would hopefully take long enough to generally be a bad option.

It would also give larger ships a tad more mobility, in the same vein as burn drive - useful, but not generally for getting out of trouble.

Thoughts? What would this break? (Aside from probably some AI things, sigh. 3b is probably the main concern; the AI wouldn't do it, but if it was a dominant strategy, that'd be... not great.)

 on: April 21, 2018, 09:20:26 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Alex
Very happy with this, this is as exciting as blog post material.


 on: April 21, 2018, 09:19:21 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Cyan Leader
Very happy with this, this is as exciting as blog post material.

 on: April 21, 2018, 09:18:43 PM 
Started by TaLaR - Last post by Alex
If you are still testing, how does this work with really burst weapons, like phase lances or am blasters?

Pretty well, I think. It considers the fire cost of the weapon in the calculation; if it's excessive then that's more difficult to manage, but then something that costs >50% of your flux to fire *is* tricky to use well. Still, I don't think it outright fails, at least not on anything I've seen - plasma cannon, AM blaster, phase lance, all seem to go pretty well.

(And can I say that a plasma cannon and needler Sunder just murders other destroyers! Both with or without this logic; it actually doesn't make much difference in this case since it'll just about fire it once in either case.)

i'm sure i'll still keep doing that on a good number of my ships, too.

Yep, makes sense - I mean, if you've got something that works with more than likely less OP spent in weapons, then no reason to go loading it up with heavy blasters just because Smiley

First shot on approach is what I do quite often too (even more relevant if I use similar variant without IR pulse laser, just HB and Rail). If my efficient weapons are under vent rate, not doing so means wasting some of my vent rate.
Rule of thumb for me is too keep some amount of soft-flux on top of hard, just not a lot.

Cool! Pretty much same, then. With less finesse on the part of the AI, though, I'm sure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!