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)

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?  (Read 3532 times)

Ced Riggs

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2020, 10:44:40 AM »

As an olive branch: If we had reason to create and maintain multiple fleets, control them, and use them almost like Stellaris' grand strategy style, there'd be something.

5th fleet is guarding the home front, 4th fleet wards off against Hegemony threats, 3rd fleet is out, patrolling our most used trade route with TriTachyon, 2nd is currently doing suppression work against remote Pather cells, and 1st is out in the *** boonies, preparing another colonization. And you hope from fleet to fleet, and in your absence, your admiral-officer continues preset tasks.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2020, 11:00:59 AM »

The thing I dislike most about flux mechanics is many ships do not have enough dissipation to power their weapons if they fill them all with proper-sized weapons.  Onslaught is the probably the standout.  Combined with generally low OP totals, we get nonsense like unarmed carriers, high-tech ships with one or two guns and the remaining six to twelve mounts are empty just so said high-tech ship can eek out enough flux to properly fight with terribly sub-par energy weapons, or low-tech ships with weird weapon loadouts (like Onslaught with mostly HMGs and chainguns, or no or only one heavy weapon) because they do not have the flux to use proper guns.

There should be a win condition.  There are none so far.  I want one.

Quote
As an olive branch: If we had reason to create and maintain multiple fleets, control them, and use them almost like Stellaris' grand strategy style, there'd be something.
That would be nice for mitigating expedition and pirate raid spam.  Currently, total core kill plus friendship with pirates is the only relief from said spam.  At least Pather bug offers some relief; no need to chase Pathers.

I would like to explore or do miscellaneous activities, but chasing fires all over the place dominates gameplay too much and is so annoying.  Not enough time to explore before player must answer the Bat-signal.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 11:02:58 AM by Megas »
Logged

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2020, 11:25:41 AM »

The thing I dislike most about flux mechanics is many ships do not have enough dissipation to power their weapons if they fill them all with proper-sized weapons.  Onslaught is the probably the standout.  Combined with generally low OP totals, we get nonsense like unarmed carriers, high-tech ships with one or two guns and the remaining six to twelve mounts are empty just so said high-tech ship can eek out enough flux to properly fight with terribly sub-par energy weapons, or low-tech ships with weird weapon loadouts (like Onslaught with mostly HMGs and chainguns, or no or only one heavy weapon) because they do not have the flux to use proper guns.

There should be a win condition.  There are none so far.  I want one.

It would be nice, if empty mounts have some disadvantages, a reason to fill all the mount other than cosmetic. Like each empty mount decrease amount of vents/capacitors hull can potentially have, so you are unable to max out flux statistic with empty mounts. That would made variable loadouts other than no-brainer "install a main gun, max out vents/caps, take some must-have hullmods".

BTW, it's a suggestion. If vents/caps limitation isn't good - always possible to invent other penalties.
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

Kakroom

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2020, 11:31:08 AM »

I did not mean to imply the endgame is to involve radically different gameplay, but rather that Starsector ought to end somehow, shouldn't it? There is no winning condition or a final quest or anything of the sort.

Plenty of games don't include either.

I don't think it'd be prudent to affix one to the game for its own sake
Logged

shoi

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2020, 05:31:49 PM »

I'd say the station commanders and random fleet captains relationship.

You raise specific captains and station masters relationship through distress calls/errands but that doesn't seem to change anything.

this tbh. I don't think it's even debatable
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2020, 06:31:05 PM »

It would be nice, if empty mounts have some disadvantages, a reason to fill all the mount other than cosmetic. Like each empty mount decrease amount of vents/capacitors hull can potentially have, so you are unable to max out flux statistic with empty mounts. That would made variable loadouts other than no-brainer "install a main gun, max out vents/caps, take some must-have hullmods".

BTW, it's a suggestion. If vents/caps limitation isn't good - always possible to invent other penalties.

I'm not sure what problem this is trying to solve.  How does it affect game play in a negative way if the player decides to have empty mounts generally?

In your example case, you're shifting it to a no-brainer install "install a main gun, install mining lasers (2 OP/35 flux)/light machine guns (3 OP/ 19 flux)/single sabots (1 OP), max vents/caps, take must have hull mods".  There's still an optimal build for that person's desire under any penalty scheme for empty mounts, its simply using the cheapest and lowest flux weapons that fit into those mounts.  You're still limited to one optimal build if that is what the player wants.  But now you're forcing them to fly around and find low end weapons to get that particular optimal build.

I should think, the penalty of the ship simply having fewer weapons to fire is enough of a penalty already, no?  Or the fact that you're so poor you can't afford or find the right weapons on the ship at the moment is also a sufficient penalty.  Why throw additional game mechanics on there to penalize those types of ships even more?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Most underdeveloped aspect of game?
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2020, 06:09:49 AM »

I'm not sure what problem this is trying to solve.  How does it affect game play in a negative way if the player decides to have empty mounts generally?
It is less about gameplay and more about aesthetics or immersion.  If a filling a mount is always sub-optimal (due to lack of OP or dissipation), then that mount should have never been drawn on the ship.  It looks ugly, and the ship should have that "bonus OP" to begin with regardless of the presence of a mount.

Quote
I should think, the penalty of the ship simply having fewer weapons to fire is enough of a penalty already, no?
Not if the ship does not have the OP or dissipation to back those additional weapons up.  I would so like to mount multiple high-end heavy weapons on Onslaught or Legion like I can for Conquest, but that is not feasible since 0.8a because low tech capitals will cap flux too quickly.

For several ships, I almost always use two Light Mortars over a single LAG because they are more flux and OP efficient.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]