- It's unclear where you can and can't be detected by other fleets. I'm going to guess that the sensor ping-ish lines say this, but I'm not sure. Maybe add a pop-up hint at the beginning of the game?
- It took me awhile to figure out that turning on/off a transponder took two clicks, whereas everything else on the skill bar only takes one. Everything on the skill bar should be only a single-click to activate/deactivate.
- The intel map gets really cluttered really quickly. Just get rid of completed events instead of keeping them on the intel map and even adding an EXTRA icon to say that the event has been finished and keeping both icons. We also don't need a little "$" sign every time we collect a bounty.
The problem is the game only informs you when you're passing the edge of a fleet's detection range, but there's no indication when you're actually in one. It's entirely possible to be inside a fleet's detection range without being able to see either the fleet or the edge of the detection range. In that case you have no idea if anyone can see you or not.
QuoteThe problem is the game only informs you when you're passing the edge of a fleet's detection range, but there's no indication when you're actually in one. It's entirely possible to be inside a fleet's detection range without being able to see either the fleet or the edge of the detection range. In that case you have no idea if anyone can see you or not.
Second this. You can try and gauge it by the wave-lines that go over you as you move out of range, but there's no firm way to tell whether a given fleet can see you at a given time. Would be nice to have something as simple as a warning bleep when you single-press the transponder button while another fleet can see you, so you have the choice to press again and face the consequences or keep moving and try again further out.
Also a little grace period would be nice, so you can get away with fiddling with the transponder for a few seconds after going through a wormhole, or if you're at the edges of a patrol fleet's vision.
So the gist of this thread seems to be that players just want an arcade game where the only thing they have to worry about is how big their guns are and what ships they choose to play with; anything that involves strategic planning and thought (CR, sensors, making due without the exact ships/weapons you want) is too much to handle. Gotcha.
Poor Alex, I suppose this is side effect of having the game stay a particular way for a solid year - players get too used to how the game was and fail to realize that the game still has some large changes ahead.
- Allies' deployed forces count against your deployment limit. I jumped into a massive pirates versus Diktat fight, only to find that I couldn't deploy anything but a single Sunder. Really frustrating in big fights when you're not able to help out with anything more than a small ship.
- It's unclear which factions tolerate an inactive transponder and which do not. Maybe add a sentence or two to the faction description in the intel screen?
- It's unclear where you can and can't be detected by other fleets. I'm going to guess that the sensor ping-ish lines say this, but I'm not sure. Maybe add a pop-up hint at the beginning of the game?
- It took me awhile to figure out that turning on/off a transponder took two clicks, whereas everything else on the skill bar only takes one. Everything on the skill bar should be only a single-click to activate/deactivate.
- Food shortages seem to be a net credit loss in most cases. Sure the rep and exp are nice, but I'd like to at least have a small profit too?
- The intel map gets really cluttered really quickly. Just get rid of completed events instead of keeping them on the intel map and even adding an EXTRA icon to say that the event has been finished and keeping both icons. We also don't need a little "$" sign every time we collect a bounty.
- Most of the trade missions are a net credit loss
- It takes like 3-4 clicks each direction to flip between the trade and mission screens
- Speaking of missions and travel time, there's really no way to know how long it takes to get anywhere
- There's no way to figure out where stuff is in a destination system.
- Terrain implementation is fabulous.
- The new ships are great. I can't believe that smuggling in a Mudskipper is actually a viable way to play.
>that feeling when your admins/moderators gossip in parenthesis just like that and they're still cool
As for supplies, when you're short on money you gotta look for smuggler or pirate trade fleets that have supplies, they're easy to defeat and rewarding most of the time. :)
Also, later, when you've got some spare cash, buy supplies and fuel whenever they're cheap, because you'll need them later even if you don't now.
Also x2, if that's important, MOAR complexity! I love it. :3 ...But slow down leveling, I have 34 level with ~250k credits (though dying did have an impact on my funds) and still no cruisers in my fleet.
@Nimaniel: I posted that thread and it was more like asking "do you guys get that too?", since I've found that odd.
So the gist of this thread seems to be that players just want an arcade game where the only thing they have to worry about is how big their guns are and what ships they choose to play with; anything that involves strategic planning and thought (CR, sensors, making due without the exact ships/weapons you want) is too much to handle. Gotcha.Actually i think the main issue is incomplete game systems. From what i can see the limits set on our gameplay are done so with future game systems in mind. RIGHT NOW it feels too hard and annoying but i think it will make sense once game reaches 1.0 (aka all core features implemented and working).
Poor Alex, I suppose this is side effect of having the game stay a particular way for a solid year - players get too used to how the game was and fail to realize that the game still has some large changes ahead.
So the gist of this thread seems to be that players just want an arcade game where the only thing they have to worry about is how big their guns are and what ships they choose to play with; anything that involves strategic planning and thought (CR, sensors, making due without the exact ships/weapons you want) is too much to handle. Gotcha.Actually i think the main issue is incomplete game systems. From what i can see the limits set on our gameplay are done so with future game systems in mind. RIGHT NOW it feels too hard and annoying but i think it will make sense once game reaches 1.0 (aka all core features implemented and working).
Poor Alex, I suppose this is side effect of having the game stay a particular way for a solid year - players get too used to how the game was and fail to realize that the game still has some large changes ahead.
My systems wishlist is:
- Industry. I want to set up factories and research bases to become self-sufficient.
- Support fleets. I want to be able to field multiple fleets, such as a supply convoy with armed escort or a mining operation in an asteroid field.
- Split fleets. I want to be able to take a couple of ships off my fleet and send them to the planet to sell stuff, buy supplies/personnel and fly back to my fleet.
- Faction conquest. I want to be able to join a faction and fight for that faction to take control of planets and other planetary systems. Eventually be able to "conquer" the entire game world if at all possible. This includes fighting starbases or even a planetary bombardment minigame.
- Investments. I want to be able to invest into planets to develop them. Say there's a tiny colony and i want to bring in everything they need to develop.
- Peaceful development - as a non-combat alternative i want to be able to trade and invest into the various planets and bases for properity.
- Elimination of factions - really wanna go all white knight and purge the sector of pirates.
- Officers - not in game yet?
Pirate bounties will always be easy by endgame. Traitor bounties are harder. Eventually, you will routinely fight bounties with 30+ ships and 10 level 20 officers. Some of them will include a big nasty capital; I fought two with an Onslaught XIV.
If you want a real challenge, get six or more patrol and security enemy fleets together and try to kill a hundred or more of their ships with your lone fleet in one huge extended battle. One possible problem: it can slow your computer significantly with that many ships (it does for me). In any case, do not fight that many ships near a market or it will take ages before you can dock there again should you win.
Traitors are those "convicted of desertion" not "a notorious pirate". They are all red pirates by name, but the ships are clearly from their faction of origin. That is, deserters do not use (D) ships, usually. Hegemony traitors sometimes use (XIV) ships.
Traitors appear in more difficult bounties.
Any idea why I get slight reputation hit when I raid a trade fleet with my transponder off in hyperspace whilst leaving no one left alive to tell the tale?
I suppose it balances out with doing bounties for various factions as I get -5 penalty for the raid and usually +2-5 for bounty.
But still why? I mean no witnesses.
Any idea why I get slight reputation hit when I raid a trade fleet with my transponder off in hyperspace whilst leaving no one left alive to tell the tale?
I suppose it balances out with doing bounties for various factions as I get -5 penalty for the raid and usually +2-5 for bounty.
But still why? I mean no witnesses.
That's just how the game is coded. Turning the transponder off only reduce the reputation penalty, it doesn't completely negate it.
The justification is something about your crew talking when you're in ports, or on comm channels, or other people putting two and two together and deducing where you could have been given your last known location and where you were seen next. Also the fleet you're attacking sending out SOS signals on comm channels while you attack them. That kind of thing. People can't prove it was you, but they get suspicious.
So the gist of this thread seems to be that players just want an arcade game where the only thing they have to worry about is how big their guns are and what ships they choose to play with; anything that involves strategic planning and thought (CR, sensors, making due without the exact ships/weapons you want) is too much to handle. Gotcha.
In terms of officers there's no real indication of the lvl 20 cap until you reach it...
I'd suggest either limiting the number of skills that an officer can learn so he always maxes out with fully spec'd skills, or removing the cap entirely (with perhaps slower officer XP gain in general).
Just FYI you can change officers max lvl in the config files. Personally I really like this kind of easy mod-ability because it lets you adjust the game to your preferences. Would also like an option to increase enemies officer max lvl as well.They do after a while but only faction enemies do for some reason. Bounties do not.
They want loot and XP too, and you did not give it by graciously dying for them. I would be mad too if my chunks of loot and XP on legs got away.
Wait there's officers in game? WHERE? How do i get them? i've been flying without officers so far :(
Even capital ships have limited peak performance time (720 seconds)! Have fun!I haven't ever run out of peak performance time in my Paragon. 12 minutes is plenty, especially because it doesn't seem to tick down if you don't need that peak performance. I'm not sure if it's something to do with taking shield damage or how close the enemy is, but I've had situations where a few frigates rush into the range of my guns before the rest of their fleet can catch up and die without being able to fire a shot, and my peak performance time didn't start ticking down.
Even capital ships have limited peak performance time (720 seconds)! Have fun!I haven't ever run out of peak performance time in my Paragon. 12 minutes is plenty, especially because it doesn't seem to tick down if you don't need that peak performance. I'm not sure if it's something to do with taking shield damage or how close the enemy is, but I've had situations where a few frigates rush into the range of my guns before the rest of their fleet can catch up and die without being able to fire a shot, and my peak performance time didn't start ticking down.
It really feels like the game is trying to punish the player because you are constantly being attacked by huge fleets over and over right from the start of the game. I ended up playing in windowed mode so I could "Full Retreat" and just go afk because sometimes I would have to do that 3-4 times in a row, and it takes forever to get to the edge of the map (10+minutes of doing nothing).
It really feels like the game is trying to punish the player because you are constantly being attacked by huge fleets over and over right from the start of the game. I ended up playing in windowed mode so I could "Full Retreat" and just go afk because sometimes I would have to do that 3-4 times in a row, and it takes forever to get to the edge of the map (10+minutes of doing nothing).
Quick note here: for 0.7.1a, I'd added some logic that will hopefully prune out a lot of the uneventful pursuits. If the player has ships that don't look like they can be chased down, then the enemy fleet will just "harry" instead.
Even capital ships have limited peak performance time (720 seconds)! Have fun!more likely if it annoys me too much i'll just mod it out ....
What's up people, new guy here, discovered this game through youtube about a week or two ago and decided to buy.I imagine a lot of people did. If anyone's wondering where all the new players came from, it's because a relatively popular streamer named Beaglerush did a short gameplay overview video. I've always been a fan of this sort of 2d spaceship game ever since I discovered the Escape Velocity series when I was a kid, and they're unfortunately very rare nowadays, so I snapped up this game as soon as I could. No regrets.
Why is there a timer for battle-time on cruisers now? wasn't the timer only on smaller ships before (frigates and such)? I do not like this. I was willing to live with the addition of CR in general and having a reduction after each engagement (the CR mechanic bothers me a bit, but I could understand why it was added even though I feel there should be another way to do it through actual battle damage instead of random malfunctions. . it still feels wrong somehow to just start having random malfunctions...).
Ships do not just stop working over these short periods of time. If they take damage, or they go long enough the men get tired sure, but getting tired enough to have errors and problems in under 3 minutes? .... that is too short. It should be hours, not minutes before sleep deprivation and such kick in.
But I do not agree at all with this timer running during battle now for cruisers and above during individual battles. I should be able to spend as long as I want on the battle map in a cruiser or above - not be limited by an arbitrary timer.
This is probably the worst addition this game had. The thing that worries me is the way developer thinks in implementing features that limit the game because of bad AI and people abusing that AI. CR and time limit in battles are probably the biggest two missteps in developing this game. While CR may work out to be good in future when more systems are in the game, time limit on battles is a horrible limitation, and I don't see it changingBoth you and the AI are limited by peak performance time and CR. The AI moreso than you most of the time, seeing as pirates and Luddic path raiders have terrible CR to start with, and all AI fleets really like using emergency burn. You should have about 20% to 50% more CR than they do depending on your crew level, combat aptitude skills, and whether they've used emergency burn lately. The CR timer almost always favours the player. The only time it doesn't favour the player is when the AI can't send all of its ships into the battlespace at the same time due to deployment point limitations and you start facing fresh ships halfway through the battle, i.e. when you're fighting multiple huge fleets at once and/or lategame bounty fleets, or if the AI just has bigger ships than you do and you end up trying to plink a cruiser to death with a frigate.
This is probably the worst addition this game had. The thing that worries me is the way developer thinks in implementing features that limit the game because of bad AI and people abusing that AI. CR and time limit in battles are probably the biggest two missteps in developing this game. While CR may work out to be good in future when more systems are in the game, time limit on battles is a horrible limitation, and I don't see it changingBoth you and the AI are limited by peak performance time and CR. The AI moreso than you most of the time, seeing as pirates and Luddic path raiders have terrible CR to start with, and all AI fleets really like using emergency burn. You should have about 20% to 50% more CR than they do depending on your crew level, combat aptitude skills, and whether they've used emergency burn lately. The CR timer almost always favours the player. The only time it doesn't favour the player is when the AI can't send all of its ships into the battlespace at the same time due to deployment point limitations and you start facing fresh ships halfway through the battle, i.e. when you're fighting multiple huge fleets at once and/or lategame bounty fleets, or if the AI just has bigger ships than you do and you end up trying to plink a cruiser to death with a frigate.
If anything, CR lets you abuse the AI more. Assuming you both have the same size ships, you've got significantly more CR because you're the player, and your ships are faster, you can just run around the battlespace until they start malfunctioning then clean up. It's expensive supply-wise, but it's very effective.
This is probably the worst addition this game had. The thing that worries me is the way developer thinks in implementing features that limit the game because of bad AI and people abusing that AI. CR and time limit in battles are probably the biggest two missteps in developing this game. While CR may work out to be good in future when more systems are in the game, time limit on battles is a horrible limitation, and I don't see it changingBoth you and the AI are limited by peak performance time and CR. The AI moreso than you most of the time, seeing as pirates and Luddic path raiders have terrible CR to start with, and all AI fleets really like using emergency burn. You should have about 20% to 50% more CR than they do depending on your crew level, combat aptitude skills, and whether they've used emergency burn lately. The CR timer almost always favours the player. The only time it doesn't favour the player is when the AI can't send all of its ships into the battlespace at the same time due to deployment point limitations and you start facing fresh ships halfway through the battle, i.e. when you're fighting multiple huge fleets at once and/or lategame bounty fleets, or if the AI just has bigger ships than you do and you end up trying to plink a cruiser to death with a frigate.
If anything, CR lets you abuse the AI more. Assuming you both have the same size ships, you've got significantly more CR because you're the player, and your ships are faster, you can just run around the battlespace until they start malfunctioning then clean up. It's expensive supply-wise, but it's very effective.
the system falls apart if you want to play with one ship against other fleets.
My Dominator (without Hardened Subsystems) has reached under 20% CR a few times after soloing an endgame threat fleet.
If people want to abuse the bad AI and play one battle kitting them for 40 min, let them do it, this is not a mmo, but a single player game.Strongly disagree on this point. Basically, the game shouldn't encourage that sort of thing - and with supply costs for deploying ships, there's a strong incentive to deploy only what you actually need, and before CR timers, "what you actually need" was always "One Hyperion."
If people want to abuse the bad AI and play one battle kitting them for 40 min, let them do it, this is not a mmo, but a single player game.Strongly disagree on this point. Basically, the game shouldn't encourage that sort of thing - and with supply costs for deploying ships, there's a strong incentive to deploy only what you actually need, and before CR timers, "what you actually need" was always "One Hyperion."
@ Hartlord: My next challenge is to kill six or more Diktat patrols and defense fleets simultaneously in one big battle with only a Paragon I just acquired. Opposition is currently at 70+ ships, but I will try to get more for about 100.So you basically did Forlorn Hope [extra hard] on Campaign.
Update: My lone Paragon fought six fleets for almost 70 ships total in one huge extended battle. The hardest part was not the enemy Onslaught with max Gunnery Implants, but the Lion's Guard high-tech frigates with max Helmsmanship and some other skills. After succumbing to a frigate swarm twice (two phase frigates, two Tempests, Wolf, and Hyperion are brutal), I backed myself into a corner as soon as I saw a phase frigate on my third attempt. Ships cannot flank me when I camp at a corner of the map, and are forced to get into my weapons range, and when they do, they die! Using corner cheese, I racked up more than sixty kills before the remaining six or so ships retreated. I still had peak performance time left when the battle ended. Over a half million experience and a bunch of loot after six enemy fleets perished.
The time limit was specifically implemented so people not abuse the bad AI of ships, or better said kill all fleets with one frigate ship in 40min or so. So CR doesnt let you abuse the AI more, but less, that is its main reason its in the game in the first place.That specific form of AI abuse is gone, but now there's different kinds of AI abuse in its place. That's just the nature of predictable computer systems.
Now to your other point, it doesnt matter does the AI also have same rules, the system falls apart if you want to play with one ship against other fleets. You are here trying to explain that players starts with better odds over the CPU, that is also not the problem. The core problem is the time limit of the battles it self. It works horrible if you want to play alone in a fleet, and it also plays horrible in any bigger fight that will last longer. And it also is a horbille addition on psychological scale, where your battles are timed and you know you cant take your time how much you want.
If people want to abuse the bad AI and play one battle kitting them for 40 min, let them do it, this is not a mmo, but a single player game. The worst thing you can do is implement a bad mechanics to try and fix something that doesnt need fixing and at the same time make other parts of the game worse.
@ Hartlord: My next challenge is to kill six or more Diktat patrols and defense fleets simultaneously in one big battle with only a Paragon I just acquired. Opposition is currently at 70+ ships, but I will try to get more for about 100.So you basically did Forlorn Hope [extra hard] on Campaign.
Update: My lone Paragon fought six fleets for almost 70 ships total in one huge extended battle. The hardest part was not the enemy Onslaught with max Gunnery Implants, but the Lion's Guard high-tech frigates with max Helmsmanship and some other skills. After succumbing to a frigate swarm twice (two phase frigates, two Tempests, Wolf, and Hyperion are brutal), I backed myself into a corner as soon as I saw a phase frigate on my third attempt. Ships cannot flank me when I camp at a corner of the map, and are forced to get into my weapons range, and when they do, they die! Using corner cheese, I racked up more than sixty kills before the remaining six or so ships retreated. I still had peak performance time left when the battle ended. Over a half million experience and a bunch of loot after six enemy fleets perished.
......Glad it's singleplayer.
The time limit was specifically implemented so people not abuse the bad AI of ships, or better said kill all fleets with one frigate ship in 40min or so. So CR doesnt let you abuse the AI more, but less, that is its main reason its in the game in the first place.That specific form of AI abuse is gone, but now there's different kinds of AI abuse in its place. That's just the nature of predictable computer systems.
Now to your other point, it doesnt matter does the AI also have same rules, the system falls apart if you want to play with one ship against other fleets. You are here trying to explain that players starts with better odds over the CPU, that is also not the problem. The core problem is the time limit of the battles it self. It works horrible if you want to play alone in a fleet, and it also plays horrible in any bigger fight that will last longer. And it also is a horbille addition on psychological scale, where your battles are timed and you know you cant take your time how much you want.
If people want to abuse the bad AI and play one battle kitting them for 40 min, let them do it, this is not a mmo, but a single player game. The worst thing you can do is implement a bad mechanics to try and fix something that doesnt need fixing and at the same time make other parts of the game worse.
I all have to say to "the system falls apart if you want to play with one ship against other fleets" is that it doesn't. I'm running around with an Über-Paragon blenderizing entire bounty fleets solo, and I've never felt limited by CR. I consistently have more than half of my peak performance time left at the end of every fight. I don't feel any sort of psychological pressure from the time limit at all, I've never hit it, why would I feel pressure?
I strongly disagree with the idea that tedious-yet-optimal strategies should be left in the game. For players who approach games as optimization puzzles, such as myself, the existence of such a strategy ruins the fun of the game. If the optimal way to play the game is boring, if the rules encourage tedium, the game does not produce fun. It is possible to have fun in spite of the rules encouraging you to not have fun, but then if you can do that, you could probably have fun playing with a cardboard box. I can't. A good article about this is Water Finds a Crack (http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369 (http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369)), written by one of the Civilization designers.
I also disagree that CR is a bad mechanic that makes the game worse. It makes the game better in several ways, by allowing for various mechanics that interact with CR. Environmental hazards like star coronas and hyperspace storms, abilities with significant trade-offs, like emergency burn, and bonuses to combat for having extremely high CR and maluses for entering a fight with low CR. CR makes the game more interesting, and Starsector would be worse for its loss.
The point that I made is that your post where it said that CR offer more abuse was not correct, as the old system offered more freedom, and with that you could abuse the bad AI a lot more. The problem is, why it doesnt work anymore, and its not because of better AI, but because of arbitrary limits of implementing simply a bad mechanic with timed battles. And it is true from small frigates to cruiser and destroyers. The system is just bad, and very cheap way of trying to change something.
If you approach a game in a min/max style, then youl never have fun with any game, as you will always find and abuse the system, as you said with new type of abusing that is there with CR. I dont think the game should implement limitation because people will abuse the system, as the game will become worse with a lot more limitation and more bad mechanics.
Now CR in it self in its current implementation does make the game worse. I have two separate problems with the game, time limited battles, that I hate, and CR that doesnt add anything to the game that the old supplies could not do. But I am willing to wait and see with industry and similar will CR have any good impact on the game. At the moment the only thing it does is slow down the game, so you need to wait after battle to get your CR to normal level, and with the new sensor and having a lot harder time finding fleets to fight it make the game a lot more tedious and boring than it was. But again, will wait for other part of the game like industry, outposts and similar, where it may not be that huge of a problem, as you would actually have things to do and not just wait around for your CR to go up.
The point that I made is that your post where it said that CR offer more abuse was not correct, as the old system offered more freedom, and with that you could abuse the bad AI a lot more. The problem is, why it doesnt work anymore, and its not because of better AI, but because of arbitrary limits of implementing simply a bad mechanic with timed battles. And it is true from small frigates to cruiser and destroyers. The system is just bad, and very cheap way of trying to change something.
If you approach a game in a min/max style, then youl never have fun with any game, as you will always find and abuse the system, as you said with new type of abusing that is there with CR. I dont think the game should implement limitation because people will abuse the system, as the game will become worse with a lot more limitation and more bad mechanics.
Now CR in it self in its current implementation does make the game worse. I have two separate problems with the game, time limited battles, that I hate, and CR that doesnt add anything to the game that the old supplies could not do. But I am willing to wait and see with industry and similar will CR have any good impact on the game. At the moment the only thing it does is slow down the game, so you need to wait after battle to get your CR to normal level, and with the new sensor and having a lot harder time finding fleets to fight it make the game a lot more tedious and boring than it was. But again, will wait for other part of the game like industry, outposts and similar, where it may not be that huge of a problem, as you would actually have things to do and not just wait around for your CR to go up.
You're less free to spend an entire hour killing a cruiser with a frigate, sure. But the AI is similarly chained. It cannot take as much time as it likes to kill your cruisers with its frigate. And given that an AI will always, always have more patience than a human, I think that adding a hard time limit hurts the infinitely patient AI more than it hurts a human. How would you feel if you couldn't kill a single AI frigate with a cruiser, and it took an hour for the AI to kill you? I would find that extremely frustrating. The AI doesn't care either way, whether it's taking an hour to kill you or if you take an hour to kill it. And you can abuse that infinite patience by having more CR and running around until the AI is malfunctioning while you aren't. That also feels more like a realistic strategy, taking advantage of your well-maintained ship and experienced crew, which I find helps my immersion.
I have fun with a game when playing optimally is fun. For example, in most FPS games, it's optimal to aim for the head. Aiming for the head is a skill challenge that rewards precision with higher damage, but usually people find demonstrating skill fun in and of itself regardless of being rewarded by a system. In the case of FPS games, playing optimally means demonstrating skill, which is fun in and of itself, but becomes more fun for being the best way to play. The system rewards having fun.
In the case of CR, playing optimally is 1) ending battles before you run out of peak performance time, 2) with the fewest supply worth of ships possible. It's a balancing act; you have to size up the enemy forces, consider your fleet, and commit the number of ships you think will be able to defeat the enemy most efficiently. That balancing act means there's never going to be a single optimal answer for every single engagement; even though you can probably kill everything in the game with an über-Paragon, you'll be wasting supplies deploying that über-Paragon vs a Luddic Path patrol, for example. Although, most players are probably going to err on the side of committing more ships than strictly necessary, as that means you're just going to spend more supplies after the battle instead of potentially losing valuable ships. I find having to balance a strategic objective (use fewer supplies) against a tactical objective (kill the enemy) an interesting puzzle that's fun to solve; finding the solution to puzzles is fun, the system rewards finding the solution, the system rewards having fun.
"CR that doesnt add anything to the game that the old supplies could not do." The old supply system did not encourage ending battles within a certain time limit. CR adds an incentive to end battles within a certain time limit. You are objectively wrong. You just don't like what CR adds. "At the moment the only thing it does is slow down the game" Well, I've offered multiple examples of things CR does other than slow down the game, but here's another. It incentivizes you to have backup ships in your fleet, so if your first set of ships is running low on CR, you can use the second set. I do that myself; I've got a Paragon that I usually use, but I also have a pair of Medusas and a pair of Wolves as backup.
The time limit doesnt hurt the AI more, as it was not a problem with the game before. 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. You like to not play optimal, but to min/max and in process abuse the system, and nothing wrong with that. But the thing that is wrong because of people breaking the game, devs limit the game it self and in process destroy the play style of other that didn't abused the min/max exploit.I've given multiple examples of how the CR system hurts the AI more than the player, you seem to just be ignoring them and saying "No it doesn't". You're complaining that you can't abuse the AI because of the CR system, then say that you don't want to abuse the AI and it's just your "playstyle". You've said that "Objectively speaking you should not have incentive to end battles within a certain time limit, because it's a bad design, and there is nothing good in it." You're not backing your claims of objectivity up with reasons or evidence, you're just saying it shouldn't exist because it's bad and it's double bad and you don't like it.
Normally that supply system, didnt had the time limt, that was the whole point of the problem with CR in battles. And CR doesnt add incentive to end battles within a certain time limit. Time limit in battles are separated as most ships didnt had a time limit except frigates , when it was implemented. You can have CR and unlimited battles. Its not one system, but two systems, but later dev *** up even more implementing time limits for all ships, not only frigates. Objectively speaking you should not have incentive to end battles within a certain time limit, because it's a bad design, and there is nothing good in it. That is the core problem, you dont want to have time limits and to push people to finish the battle in that time limit. You didnt offer any example of anything good that CR brings that supply could not bring to the table. And the limited time battles is actually a negative thing. CR on global map only slows the game play without anything bringing to the table, on battle map it makes playing how people want limited. Do you want to have time limits in battles? If yes, no problem, i dont, i want to have freedom to play and take my time how much I want.
The time limit doesnt hurt the AI more, as it was not a problem with the game before. 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. You like to not play optimal, but to min/max and in process abuse the system, and nothing wrong with that. But the thing that is wrong because of people breaking the game, devs limit the game it self and in process destroy the play style of other that didn't abused the min/max exploit.I've given multiple examples of how the CR system hurts the AI more than the player, you seem to just be ignoring them and saying "No it doesn't". You're complaining that you can't abuse the AI because of the CR system, then say that you don't want to abuse the AI and it's just your "playstyle". You've said that "Objectively speaking you should not have incentive to end battles within a certain time limit, because it's a bad design, and there is nothing good in it." You're not backing your claims of objectivity up with reasons or evidence, you're just saying it shouldn't exist because it's bad and it's double bad and you don't like it.
Normally that supply system, didnt had the time limt, that was the whole point of the problem with CR in battles. And CR doesnt add incentive to end battles within a certain time limit. Time limit in battles are separated as most ships didnt had a time limit except frigates , when it was implemented. You can have CR and unlimited battles. Its not one system, but two systems, but later dev *** up even more implementing time limits for all ships, not only frigates. Objectively speaking you should not have incentive to end battles within a certain time limit, because it's a bad design, and there is nothing good in it. That is the core problem, you dont want to have time limits and to push people to finish the battle in that time limit. You didnt offer any example of anything good that CR brings that supply could not bring to the table. And the limited time battles is actually a negative thing. CR on global map only slows the game play without anything bringing to the table, on battle map it makes playing how people want limited. Do you want to have time limits in battles? If yes, no problem, i dont, i want to have freedom to play and take my time how much I want.
I think you just need to git gud at videogaem.
...
The time limit doesnt hurt the AI more, as it was not a problem with the game before.
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.
Hey, just in case you hadn't realized, the new patch is out. It addresses a lot of the issues you just outlined, by increasing sensor range for small fleets by a bunch. It makes picking your fights, finding fights to intervene in, not being surprised by enemy reinforcements, all of that, a lot easier. It also helps with smuggling I guess. Not really my thing so I can't say how much.
I can guarantee you it won't address the fact I loathe frigates. :P
[...]And all the while what little money I have ticks away as supplies are consumed.[...]As a newbie (who has watched some videos), I don't find it impossible to stay afloat and to progress. I do however agree that the possibilities to make money are really limited and that a single mistake can turn something that would have been profitable into a financial disaster rather easily. There should be more opportunities to earn money, even if it means earning less at a time. That way, at least, I wouldn't feel forced to always be taking the one deal that's profitable at one time or to track the one bounty that I think I can
I have stalled enemy frigates to death by CR. When I solo fleets with a Dominator or other big slow ship, enemy frigates with Timid officers are annoying. They want to steal the objective if you leave, but they refuse to get close enough to you to blast them. Sometimes, your only recourse is to sit on the objective for minutes until their CR times out and their engines die, then you can destroy them.Fair enough, but if you run around with a single large ship... you know... if you know you're going up against potentially fast frigates that you'll want to chase... bring something fast?
I'm thinking they should retreat, just to save the players time.
I can guarantee you it won't address the fact I loathe frigates. :P
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.)
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.Okay. I can buy that. (D)s are junk and are probably not the best thing ever.
(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.)
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!)
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.
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. :P
Would a Mule start work?
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.Would a Mule start work?
It feels like it might be flat out superior to any frigate start, which would be a problem.
@ 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.
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
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.
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).
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.
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?Getting caught by a pirate fleet would be a straight up GG. You need to have some combat capability, or at least a decent chance to flee combat. A Condor (with a wing of something) or a Gemini would be much more doable, but even if they have an okay chance of surviving a small patrol it's too easy to be caught by large pirate fleets they can't possibly escape from.
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?Getting caught by a pirate fleet would be a straight up GG. You need to have some combat capability, or at least a decent chance to flee combat. A Condor (with a wing of something) or a Gemini would be much more doable, but even if they have an okay chance of surviving a small patrol it's too easy to be caught by large pirate fleets they can't possibly escape from.
I always felt like the Sheperds made for a much better 'honest trader' starter frigate. Minimal crew, 100 cargo, and relatively light supply cost despite its 20% per deployment. Those borer drones are really good for actually defending and even taking on small pirate fleets, especially hounds and kites since they give nice constant support. Leaves a player their money to literally buy supplies and focus on staying out/away from combat.It gives decent PD screen without a carrier. Problem is 90 max speed tho.
Edit: Not to mention... the shield. It to me makes better sense for the average player choosing honest trader start... even though the Cerberus can be quite dangerous, it suffers from the fact that players who aren't prepared to take some damage are easily taken out by missiles and beam wolves right from the start...
Getting caught by a pirate fleet would be a straight up GG. You need to have some combat capability, or at least a decent chance to flee combat.Mule has both. And probably the 2nd best ship system in the game.
I always felt like the Sheperds made for a much better 'honest trader' starter frigate. Minimal crew, 100 cargo, and relatively light supply cost despite its 20% per deployment. Those borer drones are really good for actually defending and even taking on small pirate fleets, especially hounds and kites since they give nice constant support. Leaves a player their money to literally buy supplies and focus on staying out/away from combat.It gives decent PD screen without a carrier. Problem is 90 max speed tho.
Edit: Not to mention... the shield. It to me makes better sense for the average player choosing honest trader start... even though the Cerberus can be quite dangerous, it suffers from the fact that players who aren't prepared to take some damage are easily taken out by missiles and beam wolves right from the start...
Default 90 + Zero flux 50(it is flat 50 from frigate to capital right?) + Unstable Injector 20 = 160.I always felt like the Sheperds made for a much better 'honest trader' starter frigate. Minimal crew, 100 cargo, and relatively light supply cost despite its 20% per deployment. Those borer drones are really good for actually defending and even taking on small pirate fleets, especially hounds and kites since they give nice constant support. Leaves a player their money to literally buy supplies and focus on staying out/away from combat.It gives decent PD screen without a carrier. Problem is 90 max speed tho.
Edit: Not to mention... the shield. It to me makes better sense for the average player choosing honest trader start... even though the Cerberus can be quite dangerous, it suffers from the fact that players who aren't prepared to take some damage are easily taken out by missiles and beam wolves right from the start...
Yeah, the speed is a bit of an issue, but those drones help keep stuff off the ship that other ships usually can't do without a dedicated escort. Plus, since the design itself lets you outfit it relatively light, especially if you rely on the drones/escorts you could easily outfit it with the unstable injector at the start to give some extra speed.
Alternatively, perhaps there could be a 'non-civilian' variant of the Shepherd made with a sort of built in engine upgrade at the cost of like, half its armor. Something to give it a 10 burn level or an extra 20 max speed to put it on par with the cerberus... and then a player could choose the injector to get to 150. It would easily give it plenty of escape potential against most targets and the drones/shields should be enough to deter much that could keep up. With the lessened armor it would keep it as more of trade frigate as it would be quite fragile to expose to much risk.
I don't know... all just thoughts really... I just know I love the Shepherd over the Cerberus for civilian trading and I prefer it as a combat frigate despite it being lesser in most ways on paper since it has that built in 'fighter wing' to escort it.
Edit: And a quick thought about the discussion of a mule or new variant of it. Love the idea of some more variants of it as well, I just don't see a lot of justification of having a destroyer for a starter ship, even if its just available the one time during choosing.
Edit 2: I completely forgot about the best draw of the Shepherd if you're worried about its 90 speed... because you rely on the drones (and I like a salamander missile in the universal) you're running at zero flux most of the flight anyway. Most anything even getting close is either fighting your drones or running with shields ruining their own zero flux boost which keeps the Shepherd easily at comparable or faster speeds without any hull mods.
The Hound is a bit wierd as a smuggler ship nowadays since it has the same burn speed as everything else, but on the other hand I suppose it can easily outrun the Luddic Path Cerberus.Beginning traders who do not want to fight should rip out their weapons and install Unstable Injector and Safety Override hullmods for maximum top speed. Weapons are not needed if you can outspeed all early-game threats.
Default 90 + Zero flux 50(it is flat 50 from frigate to capital right?) + Unstable Injector 20 = 160.
Burn speed 8.
I think a Shepherd would make for a terrible startet ship if you don't already know the game. As it is the only ship that uses drones offensively, it would give a completely false impression of Starsector's combat mechanics.The Tempest and its Terminator Drones would like a word with you.
IIRC peak readiness time only ticks down if the combined strength of the ships near you is equal to or greater than your own strength
This is why CR is a problem. Not because I abuse the AI during combat, but because I only run one ship.I can empathise, I too like solo flying.
If you want to give the player a destroyer to start with, Hammerhead is about as basic as you can get can. It has the least mounts for a combat destroyer and just enough power to be effective for its size.I could live with this. (I don't particularly like the Hammerhead, but I can fly it without looking drunk at least.)
I don't think you can justify a hammerhead as a starting choice.By that criteria, no destroyer is suitable. The other three combat destroyers are a bit better and have more mounts. Hammerhead is as low and basic as you can go before you might as well downgrade back to a combat frigate.
That's right, I don't think any destroyer is suitable as a start ship. Any combat destroyer would be too easy. That why the ones I suggested the ones which could be interesting.QuoteI don't think you can justify a hammerhead as a starting choice.By that criteria, no destroyer is suitable. The other three combat destroyers are a bit better and have more mounts. Hammerhead is as low and basic as you can go before you might as well downgrade back to a combat frigate.
Hammerhead used to be the extra Easy ship for bounty hunter in 0.65. Hammerhead is also the ship used by the player in the tutorials.
Also definitely agree that commissions could use an income boost, ideally something that ramps as the player levels.
Also definitely agree that commissions could use an income boost, ideally something that ramps as the player levels.
I think it would be really cool if commissions paid a fraction of your fleet upkeep (in credits). It would make sense i think. They want to hire a bigger fleet, they gotta pay more.