Print

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

[Cik]

there are good reasons not to kill everything, in certain situations, for certain characters and against certain enemies. really though this kind of shows the weakness of the current "no time elapses during battles" if it did, suddenly things would be much different; blockade runs, trading? no time to chase down every straggler, i have to get moving lest friends show up.

if actual time elapsing is a real problem (codewise, i guess?) a system can be substituted whereby nearby fleets inclined to reinforce your opponent arrive in a certain time based on their proximity at time-of-engagement.

"sir, lion's guard patrol gravimetric signature coming in from the sun! we estimate arrival in two minutes!"

etc

[Midnight Kitsune]

I doubt that SS's combat would be diluted mainly thanks to all of the stuff focusing on it. And if it WAS diluted, I would hope the combat costs would be brought down to match it, otherwise combat would just become another damn trap option for newbies and unfun for combat loving vets

[Megas]

Civilized combat seems like an oxymoron.  If the attacker is winning, why would he let the other side go when he can just crush them and take what he wants?

No time elapses for the player.  He gets to fight 100+ ship death fleets from every nearby enemy at the start instead.

Yes, deployment costs are high.  Better deploy just one ship and kill everything for maximum profit.  Even if I do not want the money, I want the XP!  No such thing as too high or too fast level advancement.

[Aeson]

Civilized combat seems like an oxymoron.  If the attacker is winning, why would he let the other side go when he can just crush them and take what he wants?

Because mostly-functional ships are generally more valuable than heavily-irradiated scrapheaps? Because goods in marketable condition tend to be more readily acquired from mostly-intact vessels than from burnt-out husks and rapidly-expanding clouds of vaporized or fragmented metal? Because your faction relations tend to go less sour if you're only stealing their stuff rather than killing them and stealing their stuff? Because it's hard to ransom a corpse?

I would think that, realistically speaking, getting the opponent to surrender would in general be significantly more profitable than blowing them up, even if you are going to let them fly off in their mostly-operational vessels afterwards rather than packing them onto the space equivalent of lifeboats and giving them navigational directions to the closest vaguely hospitable planet or something like that.

Whether or not that's something worth implementing in a game is a different question, of course.

[TJJ]

Civilized combat seems like an oxymoron.  If the attacker is winning, why would he let the other side go when he can just crush them and take what he wants?

Because mostly-functional ships are generally more valuable than heavily-irradiated scrapheaps? Because goods in marketable condition tend to be more readily acquired from mostly-intact vessels than from burnt-out husks and rapidly-expanding clouds of vaporized or fragmented metal? Because your faction relations tend to go less sour if you're only stealing their stuff rather than killing them and stealing their stuff? Because it's hard to ransom a corpse?

I would think that, realistically speaking, getting the opponent to surrender would in general be significantly more profitable than blowing them up, even if you are going to let them fly off in their mostly-operational vessels afterwards rather than packing them onto the space equivalent of lifeboats and giving them navigational directions to the closest vaguely hospitable planet or something like that.

Whether or not that's something worth implementing in a game is a different question, of course.

More than that; in a world where everyone is out for themselves, self-preservation is paramount.
Stealing *some* stuff for zero risk is preferable to stealing all their stuff for some non-zero amount of risk.

That said, this is a game; if it isn't fun to model such socio-political economics then so be it.

[PCCL]

yeah, I'll say that this definitely takes the game into a more serious, "realistic" direction which might not be a part of alex's design vision. On the other hand though, the lore of the game is definitely gritty enough for that to work.

[Voyager I]

This is already sort of a thing in the game.  Once the AI determines itself to be hopelessy outmatched in battle, it will attempt to withdraw its remaining ships and then typically retreat from the battle entirely, with the player having the option to allow them to retreat for a reduced relationship penalty than if they had pressed the pursuit.

I wouldn't be surprised to see these mechanics expanded upon once the overworld campaign is more developed.

[Solinarius]

Civilized combat seems like an oxymoron.  If the attacker is winning, why would he let the other side go when he can just crush them and take what he wants?

Because mostly-functional ships are generally more valuable than heavily-irradiated scrapheaps? Because goods in marketable condition tend to be more readily acquired from mostly-intact vessels than from burnt-out husks and rapidly-expanding clouds of vaporized or fragmented metal? Because your faction relations tend to go less sour if you're only stealing their stuff rather than killing them and stealing their stuff? Because it's hard to ransom a corpse?

I would think that, realistically speaking, getting the opponent to surrender would in general be significantly more profitable than blowing them up, even if you are going to let them fly off in their mostly-operational vessels afterwards rather than packing them onto the space equivalent of lifeboats and giving them navigational directions to the closest vaguely hospitable planet or something like that.

Whether or not that's something worth implementing in a game is a different question, of course.

More than that; in a world where everyone is out for themselves, self-preservation is paramount.
Stealing *some* stuff for zero risk is preferable to stealing all their stuff for some non-zero amount of risk.

That said, this is a game; if it isn't fun to model such socio-political economics then so be it.

I think parlay would be a good addition to the game for fleets affiliated with a faction. The 'civilized' factions don't want to destroy each other (except perhaps the Ludds), and that should be reflected upon the battlefield. To be clear, this should only apply to Hegemony, Tri-Tachyon, Sindrian Diktat, and certain minor factions. Should the player take a commission, they would be bound by that faction's rules of engagement.

I personally don't mind how it currently works, though. I happen to like...


TOTAL ANNIHILATION

[tuz]

I like this idea. There could be like a morale bar for the enemy tied to how well the fight is going. Taking damage would make morale go down a little, losing a ship would make it go down more, losing multiple ships in a short time will make it go down more than losing the same ships over a larger amount of time. Once it gets low enough they surrender. Likewise, if they destroy ships their morale could go up.
The stronger the fleet, the more morale it has. There could be perks effecting it too. There could still be some fleets that never surrender, and I think it would make sense to let the player surrender whenever he/she wants.

[Morrokain]

Maybe for some cases.   But 'civilized combat' doesnt' really jive with creating satisfying combat scenarios with the pay off of the other guys going KABOOM.

And that's really the best argument against a dilution of the current "kill everything" system. If I had to choose to always be considerate or always be gung-ho, I'd choose the latter. It means simple, direct fun.

It's just for the long term variety and for immersion that I'd like alternatives.

I agree that more nuanced interactions both in and out of combat will eventually be needed to bring the pieces together on the campaign layer. I'm still hoping for non-combat dialogue options for roaming fleets too. Fuel requests, escort requests, information on any nearby items of interest or dangers. Faction rumors and status. That sort of thing.

Where I'm torn is more of is it the right time? It might be, idk, there are definitely enough current features to support more interesting encounters like what has been suggested. Industry and other high level campaign features are still unaccounted for, though, and it may not pay off to create that sort of nuance now when it is still kind of unsure how the final campaign layer is going to pan out and may need an overhaul later. Stations and surveying are basically still in placeholder mode too. Will interaction options in battle be different between stations and fleets? Seems like they should be considering size and supply differences there. But is there enough to build that kind of dialogue and interaction system without stations integrated fully in yet?

I always kind of thought of these kind of interactions as the final coat of paint and polish that makes those carefully designed core features seem cohesive and flow together nicely. So it is kind of the roof of the design house so to speak.

At that time, though, I would like to add that I also hope that we get plugs during combat too that enable camera control and scripted dialogue to create actual "encounters" for lore and storytelling purposes.  

I really really hope to see that day for Starsector!

[FooF]

I would enjoy the enemy surrendering and giving you cargo, ships, etc. for allowing them to retreat safely.

There are various reasons why you would still want to wipe a fleet, however. Bounties, in particular, give you incentive to fleet wipe the enemy and/or if you have a commission and you get paid by how many ships you destroy. Pirates, too, will likely not surrender.

However if you're going against the major factions or looting trade/civilian convoys, letting the non-combatants go in exchange for faction rep (or less of a rep hit), commodities, credits, weapons, even undamaged ships, would add an interesting wrinkle to your decision-making. Maybe you're able to see what offer is "on the table" and can take it or leave it mid-battle. That is to say, if you reject it, you continue doing what we have now. If you accept it, the battle ends. Surrendering would give the player the choice of knowing exactly what they would get post-battle versus the RNG of salvaging afterwards.

Ideally, there would be various dispositions towards surrendering. That is to say, I wouldn't want the surrender prompt to occur every battle. Perhaps certain factions are more predisposed to surrendering while others are fanatics and won't under any condition. However, if it's only popping up 25-30% of the time, it seems like a lot of work for little gain.