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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 50

Author Topic: Blog Posts  (Read 337522 times)

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #300 on: March 21, 2012, 02:49:58 PM »

What do you mean by staffing? You can fight understaffed...
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #301 on: March 21, 2012, 02:51:26 PM »

Will these sort of limits be applied to anything else? (e.g. you can go over a ship's OP but you run the risk of losing weapons or blowing up the ship...)

Interesting question. Ordnance points are different, because they don't change dynamically the way fleet capacities do. You can't all of a sudden find yourself way over the OP limit - so, that's not a situation the game has to deal with.

Accidents and maintenance supply costs are meant as a way to address being over limits when it happens, because ensuring it can't happen in the first place is difficult. For ordnance points, it's comparatively simple.

I think allowing this for OP would lead to gamey strategies, where the player is constantly refitting the ship to maximize battle capabilities while minimizing the risk during travel. That's not something I'd want to see - I'd prefer it if a loadout was stable, and you only had to change it when you've acquired new weapons or need to change the ship's role.

On the other hand, there's a certain appeal to having the same mechanic apply across the board. I just think that in this case, the similarity is a surface one, because the underlying factors are different.
Logged

YAZF

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #302 on: March 21, 2012, 03:01:23 PM »

Yea I don't think we should be able to go over a ship's allotted OP. At least not in that way. Maybe you can buy an upgrade/refit  at a station to have a FEW more OP on a ship. Or you can have an engineer that increases MAX OP by 5 or something. (Or an engineer that lowers the OP cost of all equipped weapons by 1 so that it scales better for larger ships. )
Logged
Dear Alex,
There should be a battlestation/star fortress fight in the main menu mission mode.  :)

intothewildblueyonder

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #303 on: March 21, 2012, 03:06:53 PM »

Going over ship OP
well I was thinking that accidents that come from going over a ship's OP would affect you during combat (with risk being related to how high you go over). So if you want to do gamble on this alot you would be running a huge risk in the short and long term Short term you run the risk of having your ship becoming useless in the middle of battle (because of using too big a weapon that destroys the ship, crew deaths, becomes overloaded too quickly or the ship runs out of power). Long term you can lose ships and weapons. It may also require repairs to make the ship usable again.

(As far the issue of having under-crewed ships enter combat , the warning could come to the player when he is deciding how to engage
e.g.
-either-You have UNDER-CREWED ships--
Attack
Defend
-or-Do you want to use under crewed ships?--
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #304 on: March 21, 2012, 03:08:19 PM »

What do you mean by staffing? You can fight understaffed...
No. If you are below skeleton crew you do not fight in battle. I wouldn't fly an under-crewed ship into battle. Sounds like suicide. Better to jump the escape pods and get outta there.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #305 on: March 21, 2012, 04:00:27 PM »

It may not be a matter of choice. Given a choice between fiery struggle and slow death in a space pod in the middle of nowhere, I know what I'd choose.

Also, it's not like losing the gunnery crew for a single Hephaestus Assault gun is going to cause any potential engagement to be suicide.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #306 on: March 21, 2012, 04:06:47 PM »

Going over ship OP
well I was thinking that accidents that come from going over a ship's OP would affect you during combat (with risk being related to how high you go over). So if you want to do gamble on this alot you would be running a huge risk in the short and long term Short term you run the risk of having your ship becoming useless in the middle of battle (because of using too big a weapon that destroys the ship, crew deaths, becomes overloaded too quickly or the ship runs out of power). Long term you can lose ships and weapons. It may also require repairs to make the ship usable again.

Ah, I see. So you could say, then, there's a "Malfunction" chance for every weapon (and the engines) if the ship is over OP - would be the same as being disabled, but random. Which sounds reasonable, but I suspect it'd be more annoying/frustrating than not - I can see reloads over a loss caused by an untimely engine malfunction. Might work, of course, just saying what my reservations are.

Besides, there's no driving force to do this, other than copying the accidents mechanic (which exists for different reasons!). Still, I have to admit it's an intriguing idea.
Logged

vmxa

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #307 on: March 21, 2012, 04:46:47 PM »

That would just introduce a luck factor and as you say probably lead to some yelling and reloading.
Logged

stardidi

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #308 on: March 22, 2012, 05:26:23 AM »

hmmm, i was just scrolling though the blog post when i saw a change in the armada image.....
I don't know if it is intentional or not, but there are a few new ships that caught my attention.
Looking forward to seeing these ships implemented :P

this post:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/12/12/the-armada/
Logged

cp252

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #309 on: March 23, 2012, 10:21:57 AM »

I don't see anything new, Stardidi. :P
At the risk of being annoying...  Alex, any idea when the next release is?  ;)
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #310 on: March 23, 2012, 10:25:19 AM »

Don't start that already, haha. Wait until he posts something official.  :)
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #311 on: March 23, 2012, 10:37:44 AM »

At the risk of being annoying...  Alex, any idea when the next release is?  ;)
I'm going to make another release soon(ish).

So there's your answer.  Soonish.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

superdreddie

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #312 on: March 23, 2012, 12:53:35 PM »

My first reaction when I went over the cargo limit, was that it would slow down my ship(s) due to the excess weight. Even though you are in space, it still takes energy to maneuver, and more weight means more energy needed.

More fuel can means more risk of (fuel) explosions.

Also, why is it possible to have fighters without having hangar space?
Logged
"Do not try to make difficult things possible, but make simple things simple." - David S. Platt on software design

Chittebengo

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #313 on: March 23, 2012, 01:02:26 PM »

Regarding accidents and personnel.  Is there a preference for it to hit the various levels of personnel at differing rates, i.e. green crew most likely to be injured, normal less, veteran even less, etc or is it a random selection of total crew members?  I'd imagine elite and vets to have better (less rigged life support) rooms than the green shirts.

Perhaps having more inexperienced crew could also contribute to the accident factor - such as the rate they happen such as:

Also, with current cargo capacity, I'd suggest 60 - 75%  being the accident trigger rather than 50% and 100% being the hard cap.

For fighters beyond hanger capacity, would likely result in a random chance of losing the entire fighter.  Fuel in excess likely result in more explosions (random hull damage, possible ship loss).
Cargo im excess as blog mentioned, random generic accident.
Personnel in excess resulting in lost/defecting crew - hey, can people mutinize in space?

Very nifty way to handle caps.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 01:05:14 PM by Chittebengo »
Logged

friday

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Blog Posts
« Reply #314 on: March 23, 2012, 01:25:04 PM »

Actually, there is no need to have fuel over the cap. Just blow surplus fuel into space if you lose some crafts.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 50