Print

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

[Voyager I]

I think we're on a pretty similar page - you'd still need to keep the flux bar because you need access to exact information and there's no other sane way to convey that to the player.  I was picturing it something like armor and hull damage, where there's detailed information available on the target information popup, but you can immediately spot a ship that has taken a beating or might have armor breaches just from a glance at its sprite.

For visual effects I'd be imagining some kind of static sparking visible on the hull, like the effect we currently get for overloading, only an order of magnitude or so less intense.  Maybe you could even break it down to a couple distinct states without trying to do too much with it.  Going off what you said, something like ~75% flux could have a minor effect to show a ship that is feeling pressured but not in immediate danger of overload, ~95% could have a more pronounced effect to identify a ship that's at critical risk of being overwhelmed, and you wouldn't bother visually representing lower flux levels or attempting a more granular progression because having every ship showing some kind of buildup graphic would just add visual clutter to the game and obfuscate what you were trying to display in the first place.

I will say that, even having played this game for years, it can be difficult for me to comprehensively parse flux levels across the larger battles, and having critical states displayed more immediately would help me spot vulnerable targets or allies in need of assistance when things get hectic and there's all kinds of bars on the screen (and anyone who played against missile-specc'ed officers in Harpoon boats on the previous version will remember that the AI is acutely aware of this information!).

[Dark.Revenant]

I would rather have the shield flicker at very high flux, with the intensity attenuating somewhat based on actual flux level.  It’s usually not immediately urgent unless you risk overloading, after all.  And it doesn’t add extra effects onto what will likely be pretty chaotic as it is.

This has the added bonus of being very useful information when fighting stations, since you can immediately tell which section is becoming critically low on shield strength without mousing over a specific part.  Perhaps the effect can trigger even earlier for station modules?

[Megas]

The one thing annoying about the flux bar is the hard flux indicator almost blends perfectly with the rest of the bar, and did not notice it for a while, especially while learning the difference between hard flux and soft flux (and when and a little after I thought only kinetics of any kind put hard flux on shields and nothing else, not non-beams).

[Alex]

I think we're on a pretty similar page - you'd still need to keep the flux bar because you need access to exact information and there's no other sane way to convey that to the player.  I was picturing it something like armor and hull damage, where there's detailed information available on the target information popup, but you can immediately spot a ship that has taken a beating or might have armor breaches just from a glance at its sprite.

For visual effects I'd be imagining some kind of static sparking visible on the hull, like the effect we currently get for overloading, only an order of magnitude or so less intense.  Maybe you could even break it down to a couple distinct states without trying to do too much with it.  Going off what you said, something like ~75% flux could have a minor effect to show a ship that is feeling pressured but not in immediate danger of overload, ~95% could have a more pronounced effect to identify a ship that's at critical risk of being overwhelmed, and you wouldn't bother visually representing lower flux levels or attempting a more granular progression because having every ship showing some kind of buildup graphic would just add visual clutter to the game and obfuscate what you were trying to display in the first place.

Starsector: Twilight edition? (You know, glittering vampires and all that. Ahem.)

But, yeah, I get what you're saying. Still feels like even an "only over 75% flux" effect might come to dominate the aesthetic, though. Which isn't to say it couldn't work. And it kind of makes me want to mess with tiny flux vents going off semi-randomly from various points on the hull bounds as flux gets higher. That'd probably be a bit irresponsible at this point. But now I'm thinking about it. Argh.

I will say that, even having played this game for years, it can be difficult for me to comprehensively parse flux levels across the larger battles, and having critical states displayed more immediately would help me spot vulnerable targets or allies in need of assistance when things get hectic and there's all kinds of bars on the screen (and anyone who played against missile-specc'ed officers in Harpoon boats on the previous version will remember that the AI is acutely aware of this information!).

Honestly, I don't know if being able to get this info at a glance is an attainable goal. Half the time this is going to be in your peripheral vision, right? So the effect would have to be veeeery prominent to work at all there.

Being able to tell from looking at your ship or your target is I think more attainable because more of your focus is on those, and the effect can be less prominent. And of course if you were actively looking at other ships, it would help there too. Probably doesn't contradict what you're saying, just wanted to elaborate a bit. Different design constraints for different goals, you know?

I would rather have the shield flicker at very high flux, with the intensity attenuating somewhat based on actual flux level.  It’s usually not immediately urgent unless you risk overloading, after all.  And it doesn’t add extra effects onto what will likely be pretty chaotic as it is.

Yeah, that's a good point. I have a feeling that's come up before? Sounds familiar. Shields are a good candidate for the effect since they're off the ship hull. Obviously doesn't help if they're not on, but then these types of visual cues don't have to be comprehensive.

The one thing annoying about the flux bar is the hard flux indicator almost blends perfectly with the rest of the bar, and did not notice it for a while, especially while learning the difference between hard flux and soft flux (and when and a little after I thought only kinetics of any kind put hard flux on shields and nothing else, not non-beams).

Yep - that's what the combat tutorial is for.

[Cyan Leader]

What about minefields being a battlefield condition in certain areas of the campaign? Would be interesting fighting other fleets in a place with neutral mines, such as trying to bait your enemies into triggering them or cutting off their paths and so on.

[MajorTheRed]

What about minefields being a battlefield condition in certain areas of the campaign? Would be interesting fighting other fleets in a place with neutral mines, such as trying to bait your enemies into triggering them or cutting off their paths and so on.

Could indeed provide some variety in battle, other thing relevant are debris fields, and maybe gravitational effect from fighting near a planet....

[Alex]

What about minefields being a battlefield condition in certain areas of the campaign? Would be interesting fighting other fleets in a place with neutral mines, such as trying to bait your enemies into triggering them or cutting off their paths and so on.

I think this falls under the "pitfalls" section of the post If this was in the game, the right play would often be to lure enemy fleets into it, and then try to thin them out with mines while not engaging. That doesn't sound like much fun.

[Megas]

I think this falls under the "pitfalls" section of the post If this was in the game, the right play would often be to lure enemy fleets into it, and then try to thin them out with mines while not engaging. That doesn't sound like much fun.

I would do as you say.  It may be fun, but it is potentially degenerate gameplay whether it is fun or not due to solved puzzle or optimal play.

[Harmful Mechanic]

You could do minefields as allied fleets that defaulted to siding with the player who had the highest ECM rating (if the discrepancy were over 5, say) at the start of the battle. Assume the AI always wants to use minefields; the player could have a dialogue saying something like "reprogram this minefield for your own use in this battle? (Y/N)" with the minefield fading off the campaign map afterwards.

[Megas]

You could do minefields as allied fleets that defaulted to siding with the player who had the highest ECM rating (if the discrepancy were over 5, say) at the start of the battle. Assume the AI always wants to use minefields; the player could have a dialogue saying something like "reprogram this minefield for your own use in this battle? (Y/N)" with the minefield fading off the campaign map afterwards.

That could be abused for some character builds.  In early 0.8, I seriously considered building max range and ECM character just so Paragon can easily solo a battlestation for a "Flawless Victory".  Not technically solo because Paragon needs ECM boats (mainly my civilian stat ships I would otherwise never deploy in combat, but can hide in a corner to add more ECM bonus), but did not matter since the civvies were never in danger.  Alex patched that up with automatic Gunnery Implants 3 on the strongest stations.

Point is, if battlestations are the most dangerous and most rewarding fights in the game, it probably is not a good idea to encourage a character build that can easily counter and destroy stations while a somewhat less optimized character has a much harder time.

[Inventor Raccoon]

That could be abused for some character builds.  In early 0.8, I seriously considered building max range and ECM character just so Paragon can easily solo a battlestation for a "Flawless Victory".  Not technically solo because Paragon needs ECM boats (mainly my civilian stat ships I would otherwise never deploy in combat, but can hide in a corner to add more ECM bonus), but did not matter since the civvies were never in danger.  Alex patched that up with automatic Gunnery Implants 3 on the strongest stations.

Point is, if battlestations are the most dangerous and most rewarding fights in the game, it probably is not a good idea to encourage a character build that can easily counter and destroy stations while a somewhat less optimized character has a much harder time.

I think Soren's suggestion is intended for non-station fights.

[Alex]

You could do minefields as allied fleets that defaulted to siding with the player who had the highest ECM rating (if the discrepancy were over 5, say) at the start of the battle. Assume the AI always wants to use minefields; the player could have a dialogue saying something like "reprogram this minefield for your own use in this battle? (Y/N)" with the minefield fading off the campaign map afterwards.

The one-use nature would limit how much it could be abused but wouldn't it still be promoting potentially un-fun gameplay for one battle? I mean, mines are easy to shoot down/avoid/etc but if you hide in a corner with a frigate for literally an hour, you'd possibly still win due to occasional hits getting through, depending on the ships involved.

[Cyan Leader]

What about minefields being a battlefield condition in certain areas of the campaign? Would be interesting fighting other fleets in a place with neutral mines, such as trying to bait your enemies into triggering them or cutting off their paths and so on.

I think this falls under the "pitfalls" section of the post If this was in the game, the right play would often be to lure enemy fleets into it, and then try to thin them out with mines while not engaging. That doesn't sound like much fun.

What if the presence of mines is a rare random condition not indicated by the campaign map? Thus players wouldn't be able to lure fleets and it'd be more of a surprise.
I understand the concerns but I do think the current battlefields could get some variety at the moment.

[Alex]

I feel like it's more or less a "what if we took this potentially bad thing and still made it happen, but more rarely?". It's still adding a bad thing, you know? Variety is great but not if it comes from things that don't work well.

A retreat through a minefield, though... that could be interesting. Hmm.

[Tartiflette]

Mines will certainly add one new environement element/hazard to the rather short current list of asteroids and nebulaes. Are there any others on your to-do or would-be-nice lists?
Like, fighting in a debris field with unexploded ordinance and unstable reactor cores floating around, around large asteroids, or even better in their shadows while in a star corrona...?