Print

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

[Toxcity]

I'm thinking they should retreat, just to save the players time.

[Alex]

I'm thinking they should retreat, just to save the players time.

In 0.7.1a, timid officers stop being as timid when they're the only ones left on the field.

[Megas]

@ Mondorius:  Few problems with that:

1.  It costs more supplies to deploy more ships.  The point of soloing fleets is to consume the least amount of supplies as possible and maximize profit.

2.  Lone AI frigates or fighters will be picked off by otherwise overwhelming enemy fleet, unless maybe my frigate is Timid, which means he is not meant to fight.

3.  The frigates and fighters I would use for other (pursuit or all-out fleet) battles have less CR for later, if I need to chain-fight another battle soon.

[harrumph]

I can guarantee you it won't address the fact I loathe frigates.

Re: frigates - just wanted to say that I've read your feedback, it makes sense, and I'm thinking about it. It's especially relevant considering that frigates, while being a starting ship choice, have a relatively unique playstyle compared to the larger ships.

(I don't think adding a (D) Enforcer of Hammerhead would help much; they're just not good even in player hands. It'd be a bit of a trap.)

I think this is a great idea. Like you say, most destroyers play like small cruisers (or very small battleships), whereas most frigates are quite different. And whereas there are now seven flagship-worthy cruisers and at least ten frigates that are fun in the player's hands, there are really only four destroyers anybody wants to pilot (Enforcer, Hammerhead, Sunder, and Medusa—the latter being the one destroyer that's more super-frigate than mini-cruiser).

What about a new semi-civilian destroyer? Something faster than the Mule and sturdier than the Buffalo Mk. II, with more of a gun-based layout than either of those, but without as much OP or flux capacity/dissipation as the existing military destroyers. (Also, as long as I'm imagining making more work for David, why not TWO new semi-civilian destroyers—something like a destroyer-sized Cerberus would be cool too. And a phase destroyer! And one with some medium missile mounts! And a pony—no, two ponies! Three ponies!)

[Alex]

Hah.

Good point re: combat destroyer variety, noted.

[Serenitis]

Re: frigates - just wanted to say that I've read your feedback, it makes sense, and I'm thinking about it. It's especially relevant considering that frigates, while being a starting ship choice, have a relatively unique playstyle compared to the larger ships.

(I don't think adding a (D) Enforcer of Hammerhead would help much; they're just not good even in player hands. It'd be a bit of a trap.)

Okay. I can buy that. (D)s are junk and are probably not the best thing ever.
Personally I wouldn't mind a start that just gives you a no-frills destroyer of some kind but otherwise doesn't alter the game. The mid and late game is pretty chill as you can cruise around and reasonably expect to fight off pretty steep odds due to huge skills and good equipment, and making that easier is kinda dull.
It's the early game right the start which is turning out to be really amazingly difficult.
Again, this could just be me and my complete incompetance with twitch based anything.

I started another game off with the new new version and binned the others, and it went a lot better.
The bounty from Jangala is pretty generous and you only need to find 2 or 3 decent dogpiles to jump into in order to get a little stack of money together.
I even managed to keep my Wolf alive.
(The whole back of the armour display was black during the last battle though, so I can only assume all it's engines were shot off and are now decorating an asteroid somewhere near Barad.)

Comissions look like a mixed bag to be honest. That you can now opt in to the whole "pick a side" thing is much nicer.
Having virtually everything locked behind faction membership is quite annoying, even if it does does make lots of sense. I've found that I buy almost all my ships and equipment from the BM now and use salvage a lot more.
This is something I want to get into later, but right at the start of a game I want nothing to do with faction related drama.

Maybe it might be worth having some mid-level equipment and ships locked only behind rep like before, and keep just the best stuff for commissions?
Don't know. This is probably working as intended for all I know.

What about a new semi-civilian destroyer? Something faster than the Mule and sturdier than the Buffalo Mk. II, with more of a gun-based layout than either of those, but without as much OP or flux capacity/dissipation as the existing military destroyers. (Also, as long as I'm imagining making more work for David, why not TWO new semi-civilian destroyers—something like a destroyer-sized Cerberus would be cool too. And a phase destroyer! And one with some medium missile mounts! And a pony—no, two ponies! Three ponies!)

Yes.
You can't a have a pony though. SS+ beat you to it. And it is gloriously pink.

Mule is not bad.
Pirate Mule would actually be decent.
Would a Mule start work?

[Alex]

I started another game off with the new new version and binned the others, and it went a lot better.
The bounty from Jangala is pretty generous and you only need to find 2 or 3 decent dogpiles to jump into in order to get a little stack of money together.
I even managed to keep my Wolf alive.

Nice!

Comissions look like a mixed bag to be honest. That you can now opt in to the whole "pick a side" thing is much nicer.
Having virtually everything locked behind faction membership is quite annoying, even if it does does make lots of sense. I've found that I buy almost all my ships and equipment from the BM now and use salvage a lot more.
This is something I want to get into later, but right at the start of a game I want nothing to do with faction related drama.

Maybe it might be worth having some mid-level equipment and ships locked only behind rep like before, and keep just the best stuff for commissions?
Don't know. This is probably working as intended for all I know.

Well... more or less You get more useful stuff available on the black market now, while to get it legitimately you need a commission. That feels right to me, though the details may well need some tuning.

Would a Mule start work?

It feels like it might be flat out superior to any frigate start, which would be a problem.

[Wyvern]

Would a Mule start work?

It feels like it might be flat out superior to any frigate start, which would be a problem.

Hm.  I'd take a mule over a hound, no question.  But I'd also take the current heavy blaster wolf you can get over a mule.

...What I'd actually like to see as a starting option is a "legacy" ship - a high-end variant that the player won't be able to replicate without significant tech skill investment, like the old Vigilance variant that came with... I don't even remember, 15 or 20 flux vents, pilums, and a pulse laser.  And as an added bonus, that'd create less competition between a frigate start and a destroyer start; if your options are "stock destroyer or legacy frigate", that'd be much more balanced.

[Mondorius]

@ Mondorius:  Few problems with that:

1.  It costs more supplies to deploy more ships.  The point of soloing fleets is to consume the least amount of supplies as possible and maximize profit.

2.  Lone AI frigates or fighters will be picked off by otherwise overwhelming enemy fleet, unless maybe my frigate is Timid, which means he is not meant to fight.

3.  The frigates and fighters I would use for other (pursuit or all-out fleet) battles have less CR for later, if I need to chain-fight another battle soon.

1. Yes, it does. But if you're engaging with the goal of making a profit and spending an extra 10-15 supplies is enough to make that unprofitable, maybe you should rethink your goal for the engagement. I dunno, to be honest I haven't played the game enough to have a good idea of this aspect but so far I've found combat to be mostly an expense beyond bounties. To me combat serves mostly the purpose of being fun, risky and have the chance to drop some loot you may not have otherwise... also, reputation and so on, but I quickly forgot about making money fighting unless I'm bounty hunting. I actually kinda complain about that in my own feedback post.

2. True, but you can use a command to have them stick around you or to wait out of the way. Having the option of reinforcements like in the simulator could also be a potential fix: have the option to deploy a ship later to pursue within the same fight.

3. Yes, but the game is about calculating risk vs reward and managing limited resources. It's your choice how you spend those resources, CR being one. If you feel you can't afford to fight a fleet, then why would you insist on engaging?

Overall, I just think that CR prevents ridiculous things from happening and I have no issue with that. Removing CR would allow for things that are terribly boring but technically efficient, and I say technically because time is also a resource.

I'm thinking they should retreat, just to save the players time.

And this fixes the issue of just sitting in a fight with ships who don't want to engage.

[miljan]

And yes you can abuse current system. I dont like abusing things, i like to play the way I played the game, and not be pushed with time limits. The problem with CR has nothing to do with optimal, it has to do with removing my play style how i liked to play the game, and forcing you to play one way. Its a very limited system.

It's really no different than getting your engines or guns disabled when hit by enemy fire, or the cops showing up when you're blowing up downtown in Grand Theft Auto. That something limits a player's choices and forces them to adapt and think resourcefully about what they can do when faced with these mechanics, is not in itself a bad thing. It's fine that you don't like it, and you should say it since it's valuable feedback, but you don't have to make up all these crazy reasons in an effort to justify how you feel a certain way about a game or a certain part of it.

Your analogy is little wrong. Think if your guns and engines get disable after a timer (like it actually does in starsector), or where you can only fight in GTA for 10 min, and after that game over. You see both those things show why putting a time limitation on something is a bad mechanic, and why devs dont implement them in games that much. So its not the same limitation that you are trying to make with your analogy, because in starsector it is just arbitrary time limitation, that doesnt add anything to the game. and only limits  the game

Anyway the new patch fixed the lag I had. And getting money from killing all those hegemony is getting little easier than before

[harrumph]

Hm.  I'd take a mule over a hound, no question.  But I'd also take the current heavy blaster wolf you can get over a mule.

Yeah, I think players who are comfortable with frigates and want to dive into combat would definitely prefer a Wolf or a Lasher to a Mule.

But the Mule would be way too good as a trading/smuggling starter ship, and, at the same time, it's really not much fun to pilot in combat for somebody who wants to jump into destroyer gameplay. It's armed like a frigate, but flies like a battleship (slower than an Odyssey, Eagle, or Conquest).

[Megas]

1. Yes, it does. But if you're engaging with the goal of making a profit and spending an extra 10-15 supplies is enough to make that unprofitable, maybe you should rethink your goal for the engagement. I dunno, to be honest I haven't played the game enough to have a good idea of this aspect but so far I've found combat to be mostly an expense beyond bounties. To me combat serves mostly the purpose of being fun, risky and have the chance to drop some loot you may not have otherwise... also, reputation and so on, but I quickly forgot about making money fighting unless I'm bounty hunting. I actually kinda complain about that in my own feedback post.

You can always profit from combat provided you can solo the fleet with a small (enough) ship.  If you can do that, you do not need bounties to survive, although bounties are always good.  Extra 10-15 supplies is a big deal in the early game, and shaving supplies over a hundred battles or more add up.  Combat is also good for stealing rare stuff (that you may not be able to buy) from the enemy.

2. True, but you can use a command to have them stick around you or to wait out of the way. Having the option of reinforcements like in the simulator could also be a potential fix: have the option to deploy a ship later to pursue within the same fight.

Not deploying an extra frigate saves about 5 or so supplies, and does not put it at risk at getting killed by the enemy.  (Enemy can deploy scary fast threats like Tempest piloted by level 20 officer.)  Remember the point of soloing fleets is to minimize supply use and possibly save the relatively stupid AI from itself.  Also, I do not want to check my map every ten seconds to see if my AI ship is alright.

3. Yes, but the game is about calculating risk vs reward and managing limited resources. It's your choice how you spend those resources, CR being one. If you feel you can't afford to fight a fleet, then why would you insist on engaging?

Simple, you may not always have that choice.  For example, you may get caught by a bloodthirsty enemy unexpectedly when you do not want to fight (and cannot escape).

[Techhead]

I feel like a Mule would be a very desirable pick for a lot of players, especially for trade-focused playstyles. But what if the 'Honest Trader' start was a Tarsus or Buffalo?

[SpacePoliticianAndaZealot]

That would be okay. Maybe a turn-off for newer players, but fair.

[Mondorius]

You can always profit from combat provided you can solo the fleet with a small (enough) ship.  If you can do that, you do not need bounties to survive, although bounties are always good.  Extra 10-15 supplies is a big deal in the early game, and shaving supplies over a hundred battles or more add up.  Combat is also good for stealing rare stuff (that you may not be able to buy) from the enemy.

I understand, I'm just saying this is more of a problem of profitability than CR or anything else for that matter. If 200-400 credits is the margin between coming out ahead or not, then it seems to me that it's not really intended to be profitable. That's why I suggested to increase values across the board and make some things (i.e.: combat) slightly more profitable so that you're not literally counting every single crate of supplies you spend without making it too easy either. I believe that flying solo should be equally an option for combat as fighting with a fleet, but comparing profit to supply costs just lead me to treat combat as an expense in general, kinda like gambling for a chance at a good weapon or something.

Not deploying an extra frigate saves about 5 or so supplies, and does not put it at risk at getting killed by the enemy.  (Enemy can deploy scary fast threats like Tempest piloted by level 20 officer.)  Remember the point of soloing fleets is to minimize supply use and possibly save the relatively stupid AI from itself.  Also, I do not want to check my map every ten seconds to see if my AI ship is alright.

Again, profitability. Also, no comment on being able to deploy mid-battle like you do in the simulations? I think that'd be cool and would serve as a partial fix.

Simple, you may not always have that choice.  For example, you may get caught by a bloodthirsty enemy unexpectedly when you do not want to fight (and cannot escape).

That's part of risk assessment at this point. Yes it happens, and yes it will happen more with slow ships, but the sensor mechanic does not make you so blind that you're literally about to be ambushed all the time. Also, accounting for the possibility of being intercepted is part, at least to me, of assessing whether or not I should engage now.

In the end, I still don't understand what the issue with CR is. I cannot imagine a situation where CR would frustrate me or otherwise make me feel like it's bad mechanic.