Print

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

[grinningsphinx]

Nav and sensor are pretty self evident


Comms says it give you logistics commands and 30 Fleet Points..Umm..what are fleet points?

[Inventor Raccoon]

Nav and sensor are pretty self evident


Comms says it give you logistics commands and 30 Fleet Points..Umm..what are fleet points?

By capturing them you get more Command Points and Fleet Points. Command Points are how many orders you can give before you are limited to Full Retreat and Search and Destroy. Capturing Sensor Arrays and Comm Relays you gain more orders, in case you run out.

Fleet points are your maximum deployment. A ship's fleet points is how much CR they loose on deployment, and you have a maximum capacity. You can deploy ships until your combined fleet's fleet points reach capacity. Once you capture a Comm Relay, you can gain more capacity and thus deploy extra ships.

[Alex]

Comms says it give you logistics commands and 30 Fleet Points..Umm..what are fleet points?

What version of the game are you playing/where are you seeing this? Not seeing any reference to fleet points in the comm relay info; this hasn't been in the game for a while. Probably leftover text from back then, but where?

[grinningsphinx]

Its in the manual for Starsector under objectives

[Alex]

Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, the manual may be a wee bit out of date.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

While we're talking about objectives, I'd just like to point out that you're rewarded for letting the enemy break your capture on comm buoys. If you withdraw the capture order, let the enemy capture it, then give the capture order again, you have a net gain of 2 command points. Maybe Comm Buoys should give command points over time? Maybe 1 a minute or so?

[Cik]

objectives in general should probably be scaling with time captured. as it is losing them is almost trivial. making them more important can only be a good thing, IMO.

[Achataeon]

Something like:

Nav Buoys would unlock your mobility skills in combat.
So having them maneuverability perks would be useless if you don't capture the Nav Buoys.

Sensor Arrays would unlock your weapon skills in combat.
That extra range gunnery implants give? You need to capture a Sensor Array first.

Would totally kill soloing huge fleets though.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

Something like:

Nav Buoys would unlock your mobility skills in combat.
So having them maneuverability perks would be useless if you don't capture the Nav Buoys.

Sensor Arrays would unlock your weapon skills in combat.
That extra range gunnery implants give? You need to capture a Sensor Array first.

Would totally kill soloing huge fleets though.

That's probably the worst idea I've ever heard.

1. Removing a player's character skills they earned through sweat and blood until they capture an objective is just bad game design, full stop.
2. Removing a player's character skills they earned through sweat and blood until they capture an objective makes zero sense, immersion wise. So I'm only as good as a rookie if I don't have a nav buoy to hold my hand? My gunnery implants, linked to the ship's sensors, suddenly stop working if I don't have access to a sensor buoy? My guns stop being well-maintained when the enemy captures a sensor buoy? None of that makes sense.
3. Tying officer skills to objectives would force every single fleet to have a fighter/carrier complement, as fighters are the best way to quickly capture unguarded objectives at the start of the fight. No fighters? You lose the objectives, never get access to your officer skills, and then just straight up lose.
4. Tying officer skills to objectives would make the game much easier lategame and much harder earlygame, seeing as the player is more able to contest objectives when you have more than one ship. Earlygame players with only the starting wolf/hound/whatever are screwed.
5. Tying officer skills to objectives would allow the player to cripple enemy fleets by essentially removing their officers. The AI doesn't need to be worse, thanks.
6. Doing this would make Technology the only worthwhile early-game skill path, seeing as bonuses inherent to the ship aren't removed.
7. Combat parameters would wildly vary within a single fight, making it hard to predict at any given time how anything will behave. E.g. the enemy captures the sensor buoy from you, and a Reaper missile you would have been able to dodge suddenly speeds up and kills you.

I'm sure I could think up more issues, but seven is a lucky number.

[Achataeon]

Ha! Totally right about those points right there. Although that's just the application of the words:

making them more important can only be a good thing, IMO.

Probably (ahem... definitely) made it too important though.

[Megas]

I prefer no objectives.  No objectives, no CP tax, no interference, less exploits, just a simple slugfest.  Anything that downplays objectives more to irrelevance is great.

Early, I use a small fleet partly to prevent objectives from spawning.  By endgame, a big fleet is mandatory for bigger gains (of XP or assets), and I suffer through objectives.

[SafariJohn]

To be a little tangential for a moment: I don't think command points are very interesting. It always seems like I'm either ignoring them completely or, when I do want to do stuff, I never have enough.

I also wouldn't mind the loss of objectives. The bonuses from controlling them are nice, but, as I mentioned in this post, I think the bonuses would be much more fun if they were linked to something like drone wings or even ships and had a limited radius of effect.

I believe the overall intent of objectives is to keep fights away from the edges of the map, but I am sure there are better ways of doing that, whether simple or complex. However, any detailed thought about that deserves its own Suggestions thread.

[Megas]

I believe the overall intent of objectives is to keep fights away from the edges of the map, but I am sure there are better ways of doing that, whether simple or complex. However, any detailed thought about that deserves its own Suggestions thread.

For fleet vs. fleet, AI drifts to wherever (and let red team steal points).  For one battleship vs. all, if I can hold the point, I wait minutes for Timids to run out of CR and lose engines; but if my battleship gets overwhelmed, I abandon the point and either circle the map or drift toward the corner where AI cannot flank my ship and has trouble dealing with the corner.

[Zaphide]

They seem a bit immersion breaking to me.

'why are there all these unowned installations lying about in what happens to be the random section of space that my fleet and the other fleet met?'

Sure, if your fighting fleets around an occupied planet/station then there will be various installations lying around but they would be owned by someone, not free for the taking.

In my mind the objectives should be removed unless there is an actual reason for objectives (your fighting near an occupied world and need to take out their defense platforms/ECM stations).

Also not to sure about the benefits they give; I feel these could be removed if the objectives actually -did something- combat related (launched a fighter wing for the faction defending their space, were a stationary weapon for defenders to rally around, provided a stationary large shield etc.)

[nomadic_leader]

What are these objectives? There is no credible in-world reason for why they are sometimes floating around. What are they even supposed to be? It makes SS combat feel like a boardgame. "This is on objective just because!"  But this is a space exploration game and the world is actually supposed to make sense and feel 'real'; it isn't supposed to be abstracted like Settlers of Catan.

But since there's actually nothing interesting you can do in combat, like pursue realistic objectives such as capturing ships or stations, assassinating certain ships and then fleeing, escorting a passenger ship or whatever, you need these silly objectives so there's something to do besides just destroy the enemy. Combat actually feels so contrived and fake to me that I generally avoid it.

Man sometimes I get in a bad starsector mood and then the insoluble design paradoxes of starsector get me down.