Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Announcements => Topic started by: Alex on February 29, 2012, 09:52:53 AM
-
This version is out and can be downloaded here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/03/07/starfarer-0-51a-release/).
Here's the list of changes made in the dev version since the 0.5a release. It's probably missing a few small things here and there that I didn't write down.
Changes as of 3/7/2012
Not save-compatible
Content:
- Added two new orbital stations: "Hidden Pirate Base" and "Tri-Tachyon Corporate HQ"
- Added Tri-Tachyon and Pirate convoys
- Changed available inventory on all three stations
- Added another type of pirate fleet (small-medium sized), made pirate scouts a lot more rare
- All hulls that can be bought now come with no weapons
Modding:
- Some mods may be broken - a few scripts moved from data.scripts.world to data.scripts.world.corvus, so any dependencies on those need to be updated
- Going forward, it's not a good idea for mods to depend on scripts from the base game. They're not part of the API, and can/will change very frequently between releases. It's better for mod code to be independent of those - for example, make a copy of BaseSpawnPoint.java, if your mod depends on it, and put your copy into another directory (say, data.scripts.world.<your mod name>).
- JSON files are now merged recursively (possible to add, say, a portrait to a faction, a new fleet type, or a new starting ship - without conflicting with other mods that do the same)
- Multiple weapons can now share the same projectile spec without having to have the same damage/range/projectile speed stats
- Added empty hull variants (auto-generated on startup). Id is <hull id>_Hull - for example, wolf_Hull or onslaught_Hull
Ship AI:
- Ships with front shields more careful about incoming missiles
- Improved bomber attack run aiming
- Fighter wings will go to repair & refit earlier
Hull mods:
- Augmented Engines: 25% flux dissipation penalty
- Integrated Targeting Unit: reduced cost, range bonus is 10/20/35/50%, depending on hull size
- Advanced Optics: also reduces turret turn rate by 50%
- Insulated Engine Assembly: also increases hull integrity by 10%
- Armored Weapon Emplacements: also increases ship's armor rating by 10%
- Resistant Flux Condutis: also increases flux dissipation by 10%
Miscellaneous
- Refit screen:
- Increased max zoom level for smaller ships
- Added tooltip on mouseover for mounted weapons
- Added text indicating slot type and size for empty slots
- Increased the Hammerhead's armor a bit
- Reduced the difficulty of "Turning the Tables" to account for AI changes
- Can now export multiple variants of the same hull (in the refit screen)
- When buying/selling items, you can just drop the stack in the station's inventory without having to find an empty slot
- The losing fleet gets a temporary speed bonus on the campaign map, and the winning fleet gets a slight penalty
- Changed some stock variants to use new weapons and to take better advantage of hull mod changes
- Can now lay in a course by clicking an entity (or location) on the map
- Added fleet list (with tooltips) to the trade screen, so you can see what types and quantities of weapons are need
- Added weapon slot types and numbers to ship tooltips
- Improved performance of weapon arc rendering (mostly showed up as a frame rate drop for groups with multiple Tachyon Lances)
- Fleets can now deploy reserves when the enemy controls all objectives
- Ships that surrender have at least a 50% chance to sabotage their weapons
- Ships that surrender because they didn't have enough crew to be combat-ready have a 50% chance of being sabotaged (disabled) by their crew before capture
- Case where either of the fleets doesn't have enough crew to deploy any ships is now handled
- Changed how crew assignment works - a ship only needs a portion of its crew to be experienced, to reflect the relative importance of elite personnel in key positions. The rest of the crew is filled with the least experienced crew available. The percentages of experienced crew needed are as follows:
- Fighters: 100% (Broadsword Wing: 5)
- Frigates: 100% (Wolf: 15)
- Destroyers: 50% (Hammerhead: 25)
- Cruisers: 30% (Dominator: 60)
- Capital ships: 20% (Onslaught: 100)
- You can now designate which ship you want to be your flagship on the Fleet tab, instead of it always being the first ship
Changes as of 2/29/2012
Balance changes:
- Fighters
- Talon - increased armor
- Dagger - increased armor, hitpoints, and top speed. Armor and hitpoints are still very low.
- Frigates
- Wolf - reduced top speed
- Hound - increased top speed and armor, increased turret arc to offer much more coverage
- Lasher - increased armor, reduced top speed
- Brawler - increased armor
- Vigilance - reduced top speed
- Tempest - reduced top speed (equal to Hound's)
- Destroyers
- Medusa - reduced top speed (still fastest destroyer)
- Enforcer - increased armor and top speed, extended coverage of side turrets
- Cruisers
- Falcon - increased top speed
- Eagle - increased top speed
- Dominator - increased top speed (very slightly)
- Capital Ships
- All capital ships - increased top speed
- Weapons
- Assault Chaingun, Heavy Mauler, Hellbore Cannon, Hephaestus Assault Gun, Mjolnir Cannon - increased range
Modding-related:
- Certain settings can no longer be changed by mods (see data/config/settings.json for details). "devMode" is the main one here.
- Made "PD" flag work for missiles
- Fixed "getEntityByName" function
Command system:
- Added "Recon" task for scouting a waypoint (sends a nearby fast ship)
- Added "Engage" assignment that functions like "Assault" but against an enemy ship destroyer-sized or larger
- Removed "Harass" as a valid assignment from enemy fighters or frigates - functionally too similar to "Intercept"
- Added "Full Escort" task that assigns several ships/wings (2-3) to escort duty
- Ships carrying out escort duty will try to stay close to the ship being escorted
- Ships carrying out escort duty will position themselves to intercept incoming missiles and fighters
- Only ships close to the speed of the target will be assigned to escort duty, to ensure they can keep up
Improvements to admiral AI:
- Won't keep carriers/fire support ships in the back when the relative fleets are small
- Won't order a full retreat so easily
- Will use the new Escort assignments
Ship AI improvements:
- Fixed bug that was causing most ships to think it was a good idea to circle the target in close quarters instead of engaging head on
- Will use shields to protect against collisions
- Made heavily damaged ships avoid asteroids they otherwise would not try to avoid
- Increased wariness of interceptors faced with PD weapons
- More careful about not colliding with ships it's attacking
- More careful about getting close to ships that are very powerful
- Ships with front shields are more careful about exposing their sides to enemy fire
- Carriers and civilian ships are better about keeping away from combat ships
- Ships now properly treat other ships about to explode as a threat
- Improved omnidirectional shield AI
- More prone to using limited-ammo missiles vs frigates (to reflect the missiles' improved tracking AI)
- AI better about spreading ships out
- Improved flanking logic (better about picking which direction to flank in)
Miscellaneous:
- Ships lose most of their weapons when repaired and/or boarded. Surrendered ships lose weapons based on how damaged they were. The goal here is to make weapon drops more meaningful and create a stronger connection with your ships.
- Removed the effect of personalities on the captain's preference for certain tasks, for now - results were too unpredictable without feedback as to what's happening and why. Captain personality still affects small-scale tactical behavior.
- Storm Needler now uses new rotating barrels graphics
- Added new medium missile weapons - Sabot SRM Pod, Harpoon MRM Pod, Salamander MRM Pod, and Annihilator Rocket Pod.
- Ships that you don't have enough crew to deploy are skipped when assigning crew so that they don't take up crew needlessly
- Repair rate no longer depends on how much crew you have on a given ship (still depends on total, fleet-wide crew amount)
- Adjusted combat map size (generally a bit smaller), removed battles with only 3 objectives - it's now 2, 4, or 5
- Changed retreat and surrender mechanics
- Retreating ships have a chance to surrender based on how damaged their hull is
- The chance is always lower than the chance to repair a disabled ship - letting a ship retreat never gives better odds
- Retreating ships take some extra damage, unless the fleet had the "Escape" tactical goal
- Ships left in reserve are treated as retreating, unless the tactical goal is "Escape", in which case they're all automatically captured
- This means that any ships without enough crew to deploy can never escape and will always be captured
- Added fast-forward button (speeds up the campaign game 2x, bound to Shift by default)
- Changed travel speed to be the lower of "slowest ship's speed" and "average minus fleet size penalty"
- Changed travel speed to be tiered, to avoid protracted chases where one side is just slightly faster than the other
- Made retreat chances in autoresolve battles depend on the speed of the enemy ships
Bug fixes:
- Fixed issue w/ UTF-8 characters and save games not working
- Fixed bug that allowed the duplication of any type of cargo in the trade screen
- Fixed bug where your inventory would sometimes not scroll in the trade dialog
- Fixed crash bug for non-English locales
- Fixed bug where hitting "reset" on the ship trade screen would sometimes leave copies of ships behind
- Fixed bug where all crew in a disabled ship would survive to resist boarding attempts
- Fixed bug in ship tooltip showing fleet points instead of ordnance points
- Fixed crash when selecting "scuttle" and then clicking on an empty grid cell.
- Fixed bug where drones do not get repaired due to having no crew
- Fixed bug where picking "Escape" vs "Defend" would not let your fleet disengage
- Fixed "more info" crash when a ship had some empty slots that were nonetheless assigned to groups
- Fixed bug that caused StarSystemAPI.getEntityByName to not work
- Fixed various ship variant/hull inconsistencies (small missile slot on Condor, etc)
-
Love the fix and changes especially:
Tempest Nerf
Medusa Nerf
AC and other increased range
getentitybyname fix *_*
the 3 new commands *_*
surrender mechanics
map travel speed fixes
-
Exciting!
-
Looking good. A lot of nice changes.
What about the inability to call reinforcements if all objectives are captured? Is that still in, or are you changing it too? Curious, since it would affect how these parts work out:
?Retreating ships take some extra damage, unless the fleet had the "Escape" tactical goal
?Ships left in reserve are treated as retreating, unless the tactical goal is "Escape", in which case they're all automatically captured
If it's still in, might be able to beat up enemy capital ships simply by quickly taking all the objectives so they're stuck in reserve and take damage, or capture them if they're trying to get away and you grab all the objectives.
-
Whoooooo hound buff. ;)
-
Awesome. Excited about the new commands. Keep up the good work.
-
What about the inability to call reinforcements if all objectives are captured?
I've almost made my mind up to just remove that mechanic. Almost :)
-
And BAM goes the engage command! Love it, looking forward to the release
-
Looks great. Can I ask what the reasons are to change combat map size (a little smaller) and getting rid of the 3 objective map?
-
Looks great. Can I ask what the reasons are to change combat map size (a little smaller) and getting rid of the 3 objective map?
Took too long to engage on some maps - especially in defend vs defend. No reason to spend a full minute flying just to engage a relatively small force.
The 3 objective maps didn't play well - pretty much guaranteed to capture the objective on your side, and then fight in the middle. Not much room for strategy. 4 objective maps are a bit more dynamic.
Edit: Re-positioning the 3 objectives in a horizontal line is also an option - worth a try.
-
Looks great. Can I ask what the reasons are to change combat map size (a little smaller) and getting rid of the 3 objective map?
Took too long to engage on some maps - especially in defend vs defend. No reason to spend a full minute flying just to engage a relatively small force.
The 3 objective maps didn't play well - pretty much guaranteed to capture the objective on your side, and then fight in the middle. Not much room for strategy. 4 objective maps are a bit more dynamic.
Fair enough points, do the slightly smaller maps impact larger engagements when LRMs and long range weaponry (Tachyon Lances etc) play a larger role?
In any case, keep up the excellent work. Can't wait to get my hands on it to *ahem* hunt for bugs... and such :)
-
Awesome Changes. Can't wait! =P
Though I'm not sure why Fast-Forward is linked to Shift by default...Shift is used for Strafing, so why not bind it to F? (Unless F has some big point in the game I don't remember if it does.)
-
Fair enough points, do the slightly smaller maps impact larger engagements when LRMs and long range weaponry (Tachyon Lances etc) play a larger role?
To a degree, but that's probably a good thing.
Awesome Changes. Can't wait! =P
Though I'm not sure why Fast-Forward is linked to Shift by default...Shift is used for Strafing, so why not bind it to F? (Unless F has some big point in the game I don't remember if it does.)
The fast-forward is in the campaign screen - not the combat screen.
-
Modding-related:
- Certain settings can no longer be changed by mods (see data/config/settings.json for details). "devMode" is the main one here.
- Made "PD" flag work for missiles
- Fixed "getEntityByName" function
Command system:
- Added "Recon" task for scouting a waypoint (sends a nearby fast ship)
- Added "Engage" assignment that functions like "Assault" but against an enemy ship destroyer-sized or larger
- Removed "Harass" as a valid assignment from enemy fighters or frigates - functionally too similar to "Intercept"
- Added "Full Escort" task that assigns several ships/wings (2-3) to escort duty
- Ships carrying out escort duty will try to stay close to the ship being escorted
- Ships carrying out escort duty will position themselves to intercept incoming missiles and fighters
- Only ships close to the speed of the target will be assigned to escort duty, to ensure they can keep up
Wow, I loved just about everything in this fix/patch! :) Awesome, expecially the stuff about the new "Full Escort" command, lovin it, many times I had been wishing for just that command. Also, the Point Defense missiles, wow, great stuff indeed, that'll be fun to mess with. ;D
-
What about the inability to call reinforcements if all objectives are captured?
I've almost made my mind up to just remove that mechanic. Almost :)
:)
Looking forward to the new patch
I kind of like this mechanic because it usually means that you have out witted your opponent (unless you just loaded up on fighters and frigates ::)). Maybe the mechanic could be kept, but have a new objective (warp-in point or some such thing or whatever) right by the deployment area of both fleets. This would make blocking out you're opponent a more meaningful accomplishment and tactical decision.
Also I know in the missions having your flagship destroyed impacts the mission. Does it also affect the mission if the opponent's flagship is destroyed. Do flag-ships affect anything in the campaign? should they?
-
Love the inclusion of Fast Forwarding, though I'm hoping it won't be limited to just 2x speed (halving 4 minute travel times still means it takes 2 minutes to get from one station to another, but a 10x reduction makes it just 24 seconds long).
-
I'm curious, actually, what the purpose of the non-combat speed calculation is?
I, for one, find even the revised version you've mentioned exceedingly non-intuitive. I'd expect my fleet to move at the speed of the slowest ship (excluding fighters that have hanger space) - penalties based on fleet size just feel weird. Especially the new method looks like it will give some odd results - if I have three ships with the same speed (so speed = ship speed minus fleet size penalty), and then add a few much faster ships (so the average speed increases) then my fleet as a whole will speed up? Huh?
If the purpose is to discourage oversized fleets, I'd suggest finding some other way to do that; maybe making ships have some small maintenance costs in terms of supplies?
-
....Especially the new method looks like it will give some odd results - if I have three ships with the same speed (so speed = ship speed minus fleet size penalty), and then add a few much faster ships (so the average speed increases) then my fleet as a whole will speed up?...
Changed travel speed to be tiered, to avoid protracted chases where one side is just slightly faster than the other
I think in next patch that your fleet speed will move in quanta rather incrementally
i.e.
there are set fleet-speed tiers and your fleet speed calculation results get you put in to them
e.g. 100, 100, 120, 140, 155,...
rather than just the calculation results
e.g. 100, 101, 121, 143, 158,...
although this is just a guess
-
- Changed retreat and surrender mechanics
- Retreating ships have a chance to surrender based on how damaged their hull is
- The chance is always lower than the chance to repair a disabled ship - letting a ship retreat never gives better odds
- Retreating ships take some extra damage, unless the fleet had the "Escape" tactical goal
- Ships left in reserve are treated as retreating, unless the tactical goal is "Escape", in which case they're all automatically captured
- This means that any ships without enough crew to deploy can never escape and will always be captured
What would happen if, faced with a much larger fleet, the player chose to engage (attack/defend instead of escape) but then just deployed one ship, retreated, and waited for the enemy fleet to take all the objectives? Would that potentially be a safer way to get a fleet out of a bad situation than actually trying to escape?
-
What would happen if, faced with a much larger fleet, the player chose to engage (attack/defend instead of escape) but then just deployed one ship, retreated, and waited for the enemy fleet to take all the objectives? Would that potentially be a safer way to get a fleet out of a bad situation than actually trying to escape?
Potentially - but the retreated/reserve ships would take some damage in the process, after the "battle". So after a few rounds of that, the player's fleet would be very beat up, leading to some ships surrendering instead of retreating.
On the other hand, ships that "escape" aren't subject to this extra, post-battle damage - assuming they actually manage to escape.
-
I think in next patch that your fleet speed will move in quanta rather incrementally
Yes, the tiered travel speed makes sense from a game-mechanics perspective (and could be easily displayed by just dividing the current values by 10 and rounding down). It's how you get the base speed prior to applying that step that is, to me, counterintuitive.
Although, tiered speed might not be needed when we've got more than one system - add interstellar travel, and suddenly there's a limit on chase duration; if the fleeing fleet gets far enough out to jump to hyperdrive, well, that's that. Of course, in that case, we'd need a good built-in ETA calculation - so that you'd be able to see something like "pursuing pirate fleet; intercept in 2 days", or "pursuing pirate fleet; intercept in 5 days (outside hyper limit)", or something.
-
Is there any word on getting the ability to tell fleet to travel somewhere off screen rather than having to click and hold in the direction you want to travel? i.e. travel to Corvus II when you're no where near Corvus II and you have no idea which direction to go (since the game is paused when in the map view).
-
I think in next patch that your fleet speed will move in quanta rather incrementally
Yes, the tiered travel speed makes sense from a game-mechanics perspective (and could be easily displayed by just dividing the current values by 10 and rounding down). It's how you get the base speed prior to applying that step that is, to me, counterintuitive.
I see what you mean. I would have to see the calculations to be sure, but I think as long as no ships speeds are placed too close to tier divisions then neither to fleet penalty nor the lowest speed will affect fleet speed tier.
-
Any chance of increasing the range of cruiser and capital weapons? Reasoning is here: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1296.msg13791#msg13791
Otherwise, this "patch" looks amazing! Awesome work.
-
The MRM pods and sweet new AI will be much appreciated! Can't wait 'til the next release :)
-
would it be possible to get these fighters implemented into the game i would LOVE to see there weapons systems and stats. :D
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
All awesome changes, and woo! New missiles! ;D
-
Nice changes, I especially like the changed to fleet speed and the 2x time mode.
Btw, have you fixed the bug that makes a fighter group still appeared damaged on a combat mini-map if you brought it in with missing ships, even after you send it to repair at a carrier? Example: Bring in a talon group with 2 out of 4 ships alive, order "repair and refit", after it's fixed it has 4 ships but appears to still have 2 on the mini-map.
-
do have 1 suggestion can u disable the abilty for fighercraft/bombers to lose their weapons after being repaired/boarded since we can't put new 1's on?
very much looking forward to it will miss my speedy tempest and madussa fleet
-
do have 1 suggestion can u disable the abilty for fighercraft/bombers to lose their weapons after being repaired/boarded since we can't put new 1's on?
Ahh, good news - this is one of those fixes I made, but forgot to write down :)
-
Btw, have you fixed the bug that makes a fighter group still appeared damaged on a combat mini-map if you brought it in with missing ships, even after you send it to repair at a carrier? Example: Bring in a talon group with 2 out of 4 ships alive, order "repair and refit", after it's fixed it has 4 ships but appears to still have 2 on the mini-map.
Pretty sure I did.
Love the inclusion of Fast Forwarding, though I'm hoping it won't be limited to just 2x speed (halving 4 minute travel times still means it takes 2 minutes to get from one station to another, but a 10x reduction makes it just 24 seconds long).
Beyond 2x, it gets very Benny Hill. With lots of quick-loading because you engaged something you couldn't react to in time. Never mind that it'll be a bit rough trying to simulate the whole sector at something greater than that :) This is very much a "for now" feature, because of how the current star system is. Depending on how the larger campaign shapes up, it could go away entirely (if warranted), or not - but it won't get faster. It could really mess up the feel of the game, if we're not careful. I'd rather add other means of quickly getting from place to place than ramp up the fast-forward button.
Yes, the tiered travel speed makes sense from a game-mechanics perspective (and could be easily displayed by just dividing the current values by 10 and rounding down). It's how you get the base speed prior to applying that step that is, to me, counterintuitive.
Although, tiered speed might not be needed when we've got more than one system - add interstellar travel, and suddenly there's a limit on chase duration; if the fleeing fleet gets far enough out to jump to hyperdrive, well, that's that. Of course, in that case, we'd need a good built-in ETA calculation - so that you'd be able to see something like "pursuing pirate fleet; intercept in 2 days", or "pursuing pirate fleet; intercept in 5 days (outside hyper limit)", or something.
Yeah, definitely a possibility. Lots of mechanics in this version are stand-ins to "make it work" in the absence of other core game systems.
-
What's the approx. number of systems planned for 1.0?
-
been said they were aiming for 1000 but that could change drastically in either direction
-
What would happen if, faced with a much larger fleet, the player chose to engage (attack/defend instead of escape) but then just deployed one ship, retreated, and waited for the enemy fleet to take all the objectives? Would that potentially be a safer way to get a fleet out of a bad situation than actually trying to escape?
Potentially - but the retreated/reserve ships would take some damage in the process, after the "battle". So after a few rounds of that, the player's fleet would be very beat up, leading to some ships surrendering instead of retreating.
On the other hand, ships that "escape" aren't subject to this extra, post-battle damage - assuming they actually manage to escape.
What if after a battle, if any of the losing side's ships are in reserve or retreated (not escaped), a new engagement immediately began between those ships and the remaining winning fleet?
-
is the render for the weapon arcs fixed (I'm looking at you Tachyon-Lance)
-
is the render for the weapon arcs fixed (I'm looking at you Tachyon-Lance)
No, but it's on the list. Technically, that's not a fix, but an improvement :D
What if after a battle, if any of the losing side's ships are in reserve or retreated (not escaped), a new engagement immediately began between those ships and the remaining winning fleet?
I'm not sure what that'd accomplish. Makes actual retreat completely impossible in a loss, right?
-
For some reason im incredibly interested in the new missiles (as well as the idea of point defense missiles...)..
For some reason, I want to try my hand at modding with these new things - A sort of 'missiles only' conversion, where basically everything relies on missiles and shooting down enemy missiles... hmmmmmm
-
Thumbs up baby!
-
Yayyyy interceptor missiles! Need more swarmers....
-
Very beautiful looking patch note, especially loving the balance fixes ;D
Will this be save game compatible? I already restarted my game about 20+ times so it won't be an issue if it isn't, but I was still curious.
For some reason im incredibly interested in the new missiles (as well as the idea of point defense missiles...)..
For some reason, I want to try my hand at modding with these new things - A sort of 'missiles only' conversion, where basically everything relies on missiles and shooting down enemy missiles... hmmmmmm
Would love to see that with addition of missile 'smoke' trail for some nice looking "Itano Circus" ;D
-
hey guys!
i just jumped on the starfarer train about 2 weeks ago and since i don't really know my way around here i'll speak freely in this thread:
i'm a serial indie-game enthusiast and tend to buy them if i like the direction they are going. but starfarer is truly the first game i didn't regret to buy. even the 0.5a preview represents most of the stuff i really seek in a space game. keep up the good work! a question: how do i get the development version? or is it the one i already have? how do i check it?
anyways, nice work guys. expect me to be regulary around from now on!
-
you have the development version ;D
time to drop that "preview" Alex LOL
-
YAY on the meidum MRM's thats all i really care about... i guess the fleet speed changes too... but medium MRM my heatred for lrm's feels so happy.
-
Now i'm all for balancing but i'm curious how fast are the Medusa and Tempest now? Was the tempest nerf to make the Hyperion more favored for speed?
-
What if after a battle, if any of the losing side's ships are in reserve or retreated (not escaped), a new engagement immediately began between those ships and the remaining winning fleet?
I'm not sure what that'd accomplish. Makes actual retreat completely impossible in a loss, right?
It would mean the ships that retreated/didn't deploy in a loss would then (assuming they choose the escape option in the second engagement) have to run past the enemy fleet to escape, rather than randomly taking damage off screen. The idea was just to afford the player a little more control, and make things a little more transparent.
-
Well, the issue as I see it is that, at the moment, retreating does two different things, but they aren't in-game well distinguished.
1: it gets an injured ship out of combat (tactical retreat)
2: it gets the entire force (when appropriate) out of the battle (strategic retreat)
What I might suggest is to have those a bit more differentiated. One way it could work:
A: If you are escaping, it works as normal.
B: If you aren't escaping, ships that retreat are returned to your pool of reinforcements.
B1: If your enemy was defending or escaping, and you have no ships on the board, you are free to declare a strategic retreat - you can get away clean; no damage, no capture chance, etc.
B2: If your enemy was attacking, and you have no ships on the board, bad things happen - ships take damage, lose crew, get captured, etc. (Probably to a greater degree if you attacked than if you defended, though.
Combine that with, say, a FP bonus for defending or escaping, and suddenly you've got good reason to actually use all three options. You attack if you don't want to let the enemy get away and are sure you can win. You defend if it's a more even fight and you're willing to let the enemy escape if it means better odds in the battle - this option also means you can still retreat damaged ships off the near edges of the map. And you escape if you, y'know, want to actually escape.
-
That's more or less how it works now. When they retreat, escaping ships take no damage, defending ships take a little, attacking ships take more. There's also a fleet point bonus for defending and escaping. Matching up an "Escape" with an enemy "Defend" lets you avoid battle altogether. So, basically what you've outlined :)
Now i'm all for balancing but i'm curious how fast are the Medusa and Tempest now? Was the tempest nerf to make the Hyperion more favored for speed?
About 10-15% slower, or thereabouts. Still quite fast.
-
I suppose the key difference in Wyvern's suggestion is that how the retreating ships fare would be based on the enemy's tactical choice rather than their own side's.
-
Hm. I see it more as the key difference being that retreating ships return to the pool of reinforcements (except when escaping), to try and distinguish a tactical retreat from a strategic one.
Eh, we'll see how it works out next version. Current version is obviously flawed - choosing to "escape" is basically never a good idea - but the taking damage thing being added next version may make escape an actual viable choice for when you want to get out of a battle.
-
I'm wondering if we can get a few more fleet-wide commands (other than Search and Destroy full retreat) or behaviors to follow. E.g. be aggressive, defensive, play-it-safe, and the like. Secondly will there ever be an option to tell your fleet to setup an ambush or to pincer, in other words will we be able to dictate a strategy or tactic to our fleet (beyond the basic level, and would it be possible to set up our own stratagems to be carried out).
Similarly will it ever be possible to set up task-groups of ships that will try and stick together each fight and will always attempt to do certain things as a group (just and drag-and-drop group)
These may help the game to shy away from micromanagement and instead add to the aura of being a commander of a fleet. 8)
Additionally, although these are somewhat possible to do in each mission, it would be convenient for the player
-
YEAH, overall fleet doctrines would be epic. Like for instance your fleet has the wolf pack doctrine (just imagine its a doctrine) then all your ships upon entering combat will group up with other ships, for instance the wolf class would take a comrade or two and go on a hunt. They will hit and run while your larger ships are the ones soaking damage by turtling closer to the enemy. Basically the packs take the faster and more heavy hitting ships and put them in packs to attack and if the enemy starts noticing them they run away while the slower ships join the main fleet for the main fight.
-
I particularly like the idea of the player creating their own ship groupings.
-
Love the inclusion of Fast Forwarding, though I'm hoping it won't be limited to just 2x speed (halving 4 minute travel times still means it takes 2 minutes to get from one station to another, but a 10x reduction makes it just 24 seconds long).
Beyond 2x, it gets very Benny Hill. With lots of quick-loading because you engaged something you couldn't react to in time. Never mind that it'll be a bit rough trying to simulate the whole sector at something greater than that :) This is very much a "for now" feature, because of how the current star system is. Depending on how the larger campaign shapes up, it could go away entirely (if warranted), or not - but it won't get faster. It could really mess up the feel of the game, if we're not careful. I'd rather add other means of quickly getting from place to place than ramp up the fast-forward button.
I think this is one of those times where you should blatantly steal mechanics from NAEV's time compression system: Specifically the bit where you get automatically dropped back to normal game time when you get aggroe'd by an enemy (In this case, a check for if something is within a screen of you, hostile and wants to engage, and faster).
Though I realize that starfarer's engine probably isn't capable of the optimizations that NAEV uses to get 14x and upwards game acceleration.
-
I was thinking it would be acceptable to just have 2x game speed. one thing that would be interesting would be having it acticated by zooming all the way out.
-
Wait, devMode is being disabled? :/
-
Wait, devMode is being disabled? :/
You can still enable it yourself. Mods can't do it for you, though - too much potential for ending up in devMode w/o knowing about it.
-
That's probably a good idea, too easy to have it turned on for development testing in a mod and forget to change it back.
-
Alex, what of the possibility of adding weapons (energy based most likely) designed specifically to kill ship crews. Then ships could be disabled but with minimum damage allowing a guaranteed boarding / capture.
-
Sounds really overpowered, even if those weapons were fully neutralized by shields.
-
Alex, what of the possibility of adding weapons (energy based most likely) designed specifically to kill ship crews. Then ships could be disabled but with minimum damage allowing a guaranteed boarding / capture.
Also, note that the crew doesn't need to be alive on the ship during the fight. Its after the fight it starts to matter. I once fought with my wolf class with barely the amount of crew and during the fight my ship got heavily damaged, after the fight i no longer got enough people to crew it. Basically think of it this way. As long as there is crew left in the ship they will fight to the last. Another thing you can think is andromeda, you know what they got there? Automatic weapons systems that kick in when there is not enough crew for it on the andromeda. Which throughout the entire series it is only fully crewed twice. Which is incredibly stupid all things considered but it was a relatively cheap way to do it so i guess thats what they went for. Also sometimes you do see more crew but you never get to know if they are actually aboard by a mistake but really it doesn't matter. What matters is that throughout the series there is rarely a moment when they need crew to fire their weapons.
-
Sounds really overpowered, even if those weapons were fully neutralized by shields.
They could/would still inflict armor/hull damage, but would have a chance of killing crew members. Also, for balance purposes, they could perhaps be limited to extremely large ships/weapon mounts and generate an absurd amount of flux.
-
Sounds really overpowered, even if those weapons were fully neutralized by shields.
Honestly, I would like to see things take a step in the opposite direction, but with something similar to what that guy suggested.
I feel like ships should not be boardable and recoverable AT ALL in regular combat, and at most you should only be able to get salvage from ships that you disable or destroy. I'm iffy on enemy ships even surrendering and thus providing free, fully intact ships for your fleet under any circumstances. It's just too easy.
If anything, I would like to see it changed so that you could only capture enemy ships if you specifically outfitted your own ships with nonlethal, disabling weaponry and fought with the intention of capturing an intact or mostly intact target.
As it stands, it seems to me that it's way too easy to frequently get extra ships without having to build up your own credits, or even do anything particularly special other than count on the luck of the draw. It isn't a problem so far, with how barebones the campaign mode currently is, but I think it will become an issue as more gameplay features are implemented and fleshed out, such as commodity trading and such.
Why would I ever consider investing in trade ships and playing a living interplanetary market to rack up credits as a viable method of progression when I can simply blow crap up willy-nilly and grab some shiny new ships from the smoldering wreckage just by fighting normally?
Well, I still would because I really like that sort of thing, but it would seem a lot more evenly balanced if I had to replace my attack ship's explodey torpedoes with special disabling EMP torpedoes just to have the chance to board and acquire an enemy ship, thus weakening my overall combat effectiveness and placing that ship in particular at greater risk during normal combat.
-
Because using trading you can do it the legit way and also have access to a huge multitude of stations. Along with good connections and a possibility to get hired for stuff that grants you way larger rewards and more frequent crew pools that you can draft from. Being a pirate will probably cost you a lot elsewhere, while if you figure doing this against pirates you could give the pirates larger and more powerful ships to reflect that they are better pirates at least in the start in front of you. There are way too many fixes that can balance that:)
-
We already have an EMP damage type, and a good variety of weapons that use it.
How about in addition to disabling turrets and such, EMP damage could build up in the ship's power core? There could be mods that make you less vulnerable to it, and it could dissipate over time similar to flux. Bringing the EMP in the power core above a certain point (depending on ship) would disable the ship completely - engines, shields, and all weapons - and would keep the ship disabled until it drops below that point - which could be a long time if you hit it with a few extra bursts of EMP weapons after the initial disabling hit. It could still recover and start fighting again if you take too long to mop up its friends, but if all the enemy ships are destroyed or disabled with EMP the battle would end - and all ships disabled this way would be able to be boarded.
The EMP dealing guns still do other damage, and don't work through shields, so it would still be difficult to disable ships without heavily damaging them. You could even set it so that the EMP damage doesn't add to the ship's power core unless it's getting through the armor, with a percentage of the EMP damage getting through based on how much of the gun's main damage got through to the hull.
That way you would have to cause hull damage to get the ship disabled, and trying to keep more than one or two ships disabled might be difficult. And the EMP dealing weapons are already balanced to deal lower damage than other similar weapons.
-
To be honest, I think the fix to ships being too easily captured is different entirely.
The real problem isn't that ships are too easy to capture, it is that they are too easy to repair. A ship knocked down to 10% should take a long time and be very expensive to repair. Think about it, that ship is full of holes, with systems shot to hell and equipment needing replacement. Heck you could argue that tug boats should be added along with dry docks. Haul all of the ships to port and have the mechanics scavenge for parts from them all to make a working ship and scrap the rest for credits.
I guess it really depends on the way Alex is thinking about the lore. From what I gather new ships are difficult to come by, so you are mainly going to be seeing low and midtech stuff that has been flying around for a long time. Given that shouldn't ships be easily disabled but tough to patch back together, however worth it as new ships are hard to come by and expensive. Currently it is much too easy to buy new ships at full health.
Thoughts?
-
God yes! Nori, you are brilliant. The issue really is the repair part. Also adding an upkeep for crew might be smart. If every ship is damaged or of lesser standard which would be the norm when most ships flying around is mid to low tech due to them flying for a while meaning it will be hard to come by a well patched together ship, although it would be possible. Anyways, this would add the need for you to actually authorize patching cash and the parts are not necessarily available at every port? Meaning that every ship you capture will cost you cash to keep up to date so you might not want to keep all your ships even tough you can repair them simply because they cost more to repair and keep while repairing then they are worth in battle.
This will also bring the rag tag fleets as a viable way to play. keeping every ship at top standard would lead to good ships that rarely malfunction. Then you got normal standard which sometimes does but not to much. They cost less then top standard ship. Then you got the bottom. Where rag tag mercenaries come in. Terrible standard, ships are prone to breaking apart much earlier in the battle and so on. They barely cost maintenance but it would allow for players to choose their fleets. Well kept ships that are really good? Or terribly kept ships but more of them or somewhere in between. That would be epic!
That would be my thought:)
-
Currently it is much too easy to buy new ships at full health.
Thoughts?
When the campaign gets a bit more flushed out and some sort of news system is in place, it'd be great to see an ad in there promoting a second hand ship business ;D.
-
Great ideas blackfang. I was thinking along similar lines with crew and ships taking credits for wages and maintenance respectively.
You idea about ship standards is awesome, low maintenance ships have higher chance to breakdown, but cheaper to fly around. It could also be that high-tech ships naturally have slightly higher maintenance since they have all the intricate parts, whereas low-tech is simple mechanical stuff.
Doing this would require "parts" to be added, something more complex than just simple supplies. Imagine searching the galaxy to find that part which will allow your kickass Odyssey to run in tip top shape... :) Could be fun.
Good stuff here...
-
Stuff
More Stuff
You guys seem to have the right idea. I pulled my suggestions mostly from another game that already had a nicely working system in place, though for boarding, not capturing (Ascii Sector).
I still think it might work well in conjunction with what you are suggesting, but if I had to choose, I'd say you guys are thinking on terms that are better suited for how Starfarer works. In this way, the distinction could just remain disabled=chance to salvage, destroyed=no salvage, but with highly increased chance to accidentally destroy ships in combat with too much damage after they're disabled.
Either way, I want the act of obtaining more and newer ships to carry some REAL weight, with saving up credits to make purchases being a very valid alternative to boarding disabled enemy ships, with its own set of advantages in comparison.
-
@j01: Totally agree with you. Getting that shiny new Medusa should be a rare and treasured experience. Though on the flipside I would argue that your own ships should have a lower chance of being totally scrapped or else it would be mind-numbingly frustrating to get the Medusa and lose it the next battle. Maybe that sort of thing will be effected by character and officer skills.
I'm thinking surgery, first aid and wound treatment in mound and blade, that sort of thing. :) Obviously SF has to come to it's own formulas calculations and systems though.
-
Just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment that ships should be harder to get. It's easier right now, because combat is the only way to get ships OR money, and it's inherently risky, so can't make it too hard. Still, in the next version, it'll be a bit more difficult - in some yet-to-be-mentioned ways.
As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.
-
Good to hear Alex, thanks for the reply.
-
As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.
When that happens and the ships are actually getting hard to come by i will start naming them with unique names:D
-
By next version you mean... .51a? or you mean the actual .5a? I'm presuming something like the former
-
By next version you mean... .51a? or you mean the actual .5a? I'm presuming something like the former
I mean this upcoming "bugfix and improvements" release. Still undecided on what to call it, actually. Since technically this current release an 0.5a preview, but I've got half a mind to call it 0.5a, and then call the next one 0.51a just to simplify things :)
-
will there be any new ship models implemented in this release?
-
I don't know if this has been brought up or not but a few missions (even very basic repeatable ones) would be nice.
-
As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.
If it's still as easy to lose ships in battle, then this could be extremely painful. I guess that there will be various improvements to this side of things in the future though.
-
Just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment that ships should be harder to get. It's easier right now, because combat is the only way to get ships OR money, and it's inherently risky, so can't make it too hard. Still, in the next version, it'll be a bit more difficult - in some yet-to-be-mentioned ways.
As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.
Bah. It's hard to fathom this game getting more fun, but it just keeps doing it.
-
Just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment that ships should be harder to get. It's easier right now, because combat is the only way to get ships OR money, and it's inherently risky, so can't make it too hard. Still, in the next version, it'll be a bit more difficult - in some yet-to-be-mentioned ways.
As the game progresses, and non-combat elements are added, getting new ships will become a more and more momentous event.
YESSSSSSSSSSssssssss ;D
-
.5b? I really like the ideas mentioned about ship maintenance/crew costs etc. As well as Repairing ships from scrapped being prohibitively expensive/not necessarily possible in deep space. The key to something like that would be to make sure the character can still run his fleet without having to constantly make money. Upkeep costs make a lot of sense, but they could be tedious and lead to things like forcing the player to farm a lot of cash in order to run a fleet he can't actually afford. This could probably be countered by having sources of income that don't require direct player interaction which I believe will be possible due to some stuff I read in the blog a while back about running trade fleets/miner fleets etc. Have patience dudes, the income models in this game are going to require a HUGE amount of balancing once they're actually implemented so, I'd expect that'll take a while to work out cleanly.
-
I really love all the changes listed right now, keep the goodness coming guys...^^
Alex, a suggestion regarding fighters/bombers. If there are enough hangars to house all vessels, it is only logical to not have them impede the general fleet movement speed in campaign mode. After all, they are only deployed when the battle comes, and the rest of the time are stowed away.
I understand that there could be some issues with OP fast carrier fleets though, so some adjustments to ordnance points, cost or survivability would be due.
Just my 2c, cheers..C:
-
There aren't fast carriers (as of now at least) outside of mods, so I don't think there's much worry of that kinda thing.
Edit: hangar space not flight decks, derp, disregard.
-
not sure but hanger space may only be used then hyperjumping or what ever when u in a system u want your fights gaurding your ships there by slowing the fleet down if they slow. for example "capt bring in the fighters we about to jump"
that might be the reason they slow you down but maybe if u have say 4 sets of fighter and 4 flight decks then you could get some sort of bounse becuase they could stay on the ships while still being rdy to defend in a hurry.
this is just what i came up with for how the fleets speed might be effected by fighters not anything Alex has said.
-
Well, think of it this way. Fighters/Bomber launching-rearming-refitting is very fast in battle. If a captain can have an interceptor wing docked , rearmed , repaired and off to battle for wave 2 in a matter of minutes then why should he opt to keep them outside his bigger ships when not in battle? The only thing this would achieve is more fuel and maintenance costs for his light craft. XD
I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his fighter squadrons, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.
-
I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his light craft, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.
That's more or less the plan :)
-
So are you thinking that each ship above fighter/bomber size has three drives? One for combat, we'll call em thursters, one for inner-system travel, (impulse drives?) and one FTL drive for inter-system travel? Then the fighter/bombers would only have the first one, whereas all the other ships have all of them. That sort of idea would make sense.
-
I agree though that not fitting hyperspace drives in small craft would be interesting. It would force commanders to maintain adequate hangar space for his light craft, because the alternative would be to scrap them before a jump.
That's more or less the plan :)
Nerd comment here: interestingly this is a dynamic used in the Star Wars universe. The Empire relied on relatively cheap TIE Fighters that were carried around in the carrier Star Destroyers. The Rebellion utilized the "more expensive" but more tactically capable X-Wings and Y-Wings which had built in hyperdrives (*push glasses up and snort*). It is an interesting, sort of David and Goliath dynamic where two sides approach the same problem in very different manners. It would be interesting to see a fleet composed of all fighters jumping all over the sector harassing everyone.
At the same time I think I prefer what Alex is doing, requiring the fighters to use a carrier craft for FTL. In the end I think that makes more sense anyway, since even if a fighter did have FTL capability it would really just end up being really expensive cannon fodder if it was far from any support ship.
-
The Rebellion utilized the "more expensive" but more tactically capable X-Wings and Y-Wings which had built in hyperdrives
Strategically.
(it annoys me to no end)
-
Definition of Strategically according to the free dictionary..
1. Of or relating to strategy.
2.
a. Important or essential in relation to a plan of action: a strategic withdrawal.
b. Essential to the effective conduct of war: strategic materials.
c. Highly important to an intended objective: The staff discussed strategic marketing factors.
3. Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy: strategic bombing.
Tactically
1. Of, relating to, or using tactics.
2.
a. Of, relating to, used in, or involving military or naval operations that are smaller, closer to base, and of less long-term significance than strategic operations.
b. Carried out in support of military or naval operations: tactical bombing.
3. Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill.
Personally, I think the latter and former are both applicable to it, although strategically probably is more applicable, yes.
-
I mean, there are cases where the hyperdrive can lend a tactical advantage - in the case of using the hyperdrive to gain distance from hostile fighters, while still staying on the field of battle..
However, from what I know of the Star Wars universe, hyperdrives were not used in such a manner - they were merely used as a means of moving between theaters of operation or battlefields, making it purely a strategic deal.
Especially given the context - 'TIE fighters/etc required carriers, while rebellion fighters had hyperdrives' - This is a purely strategic comparison of the two.
-
Ah, I am not an entire Star Wars fanatic so I wasn't really aware of such specific use of Hyperdrive, I apologize.
Other than that , I'll have to agree.
-
I mean, there are cases where the hyperdrive can lend a tactical advantage - in the case of using the hyperdrive to gain distance from hostile fighters, while still staying on the field of battle..
However, from what I know of the Star Wars universe, hyperdrives were not used in such a manner - they were merely used as a means of moving between theaters of operation or battlefields, making it purely a strategic deal.
Especially given the context - 'TIE fighters/etc required carriers, while rebellion fighters had hyperdrives' - This is a purely strategic comparison of the two.
What about Thrawn?
-
Sorry, I dont understand what you are saying by Thrawn - Could you elaborate?
-
The Rebellion utilized the "more expensive" but more tactically capable X-Wings and Y-Wings which had built in hyperdrives
Strategically.
(it annoys me to no end)
Fair enough. I concede your point.
-
Sorry, I dont understand what you are saying by Thrawn - Could you elaborate?
Thrawn should be a triology of books that comes after the series? Star wars books that is:P
-
Well, yes, that much I could surmise from light googling; How does it relate to tactical use of the hyperdrive engine, as I assume that is the point he is trying to make?
-
Well, yes, that much I could surmise from light googling; How does it relate to tactical use of the hyperdrive engine, as I assume that is the point he is trying to make?
Prolly something in those books had that kind of usage
-
By next version you mean... .51a? or you mean the actual .5a? I'm presuming something like the former
I mean this upcoming "bugfix and improvements" release. Still undecided on what to call it, actually. Since technically this current release an 0.5a preview, but I've got half a mind to call it 0.5a, and then call the next one 0.51a just to simplify things :)
You could call it 0.5b, Alex.
-
By next version you mean... .51a? or you mean the actual .5a? I'm presuming something like the former
I mean this upcoming "bugfix and improvements" release. Still undecided on what to call it, actually. Since technically this current release an 0.5a preview, but I've got half a mind to call it 0.5a, and then call the next one 0.51a just to simplify things :)
You could call it 0.5b, Alex.
I thought the same thing when I saw that :P
-
Ah, but the 'a' stand for 'alpha' :)
-
Just a quick question: Will we have some kind of warp/hyperspace thing when we want to travel to other systems than corvus (there will be more, right?)
-
Yep - the details are TBD, though.
-
Oh, and one more thing: is it true that there will come medium launchers of the small launchers aswell?
-
- Added new medium missile weapons - Sabot SRM Pod, Harpoon MRM Pod, Salamander MRM Pod, and Annihilator Rocket Pod.
Check the patch notes dawg. It's right there.
-
Right, Didn't read em. But will there be more of such kind as a heavy version of, say the flak cannon?
-
There's already a dual flak cannon, not quite sure what else you want..... Using a large mount for point defense is a biiiiiiit....
-
......op? Yeah, but it does take a large spot :D, good for ships with low op. What I was meaning was Will there be, I.e a heavy hypervelocity driver, like there are in some mods and so on?
-
At this point, I'd like to spend a few more days making miscellaneous improvements, and then make the release.
starting to drool Alex :P waiting for the next release.
-
Sounds like a wednesday release by the wording (if I counted right, and had the right post-date >.>)
-
Wait, if you're going to release it soon, will the mods be compatible with it?
-
Wait, if you're going to release it soon, will the mods be compatible with it?
Given it sounds like being mostly a collection of fixes rather than much in the way of new stuff (other than the Tri-Tachyon station), I'd imagine there shouldn't be problems, although some mods may interact unpredictably with the TT station.
That'd be my guess, at any rate.
-
Wait, if you're going to release it soon, will the mods be compatible with it?
Given it sounds like being mostly a collection of fixes rather than much in the way of new stuff (other than the Tri-Tachyon station), I'd imagine there shouldn't be problems, although some mods may interact unpredictably with the TT station.
That'd be my guess, at any rate.
I guess then that the New Update won't be compatible with the tt station mod? If it adds a tt station I'm guessing it won't work with that mod.
-
All it'll need is to take its tt station out and just be the Gun Runners.
-
Ah, but the 'a' stand for 'alpha' :)
Then clearly the next version should be .5a2!
-
I guess then that the New Update won't be compatible with the tt station mod? If it adds a tt station I'm guessing it won't work with that mod.
It may or may not be. It's also possible that the mod will result in there being two rather than one Tri-Tachyon stations, for example.
-
Ah, but the 'a' stand for 'alpha' :)
Then clearly the next version should be .5a2!
actually, the last version was a release candidate; it was not the real .5a
-
Two questions:
First of all, you mentioned that you'd be making ship acquisition slightly harder. Is it easier to repair your own disabled ships after a battle then? Otherwise it makes the game even more of a "save before every battle" fest since it's even harder to acquire replacement ships.
Secondly, what does this mean?
Ships lose most of their weapons when repaired and/or boarded. Surrendered ships lose weapons based on how damaged they were. The goal here is to make weapon drops more meaningful and create a stronger connection with your ships.
So if your ship takes hull damage, do you lose weapons? Or does this merely deal with the acquisition of new ships via boarding/surrendering?
-
So if your ship takes hull damage, do you lose weapons? Or does this merely deal with the acquisition of new ships via boarding/surrendering?
The latter.
-
So if your ship takes hull damage, do you lose weapons? Or does this merely deal with the acquisition of new ships via boarding/surrendering?
The latter.
That's how I interpret it as well--he wouldn't be conflating "repaired" with "boarded" if he didn't mean this only happens when, e.g. you have a ship that gets disabled but you're able to repair it after the battle.
As for the general comment about it being difficult to get ships, I think it's actually rather *too* easy to get them now, at least once you've got over the hump of getting the first additional ship. By the time you've got a fleet represented by 3 triangles on the campaign map rather than 1 you can earn thousands just from the CPU cores left after each battle.
-
...
Beyond 2x, it gets very Benny Hill. With lots of quick-loading because you engaged something you couldn't react to in time. Never mind that it'll be a bit rough trying to simulate the whole sector at something greater than that :) This is very much a "for now" feature, because of how the current star system is. Depending on how the larger campaign shapes up, it could go away entirely (if warranted), or not - but it won't get faster. It could really mess up the feel of the game, if we're not careful. I'd rather add other means of quickly getting from place to place than ramp up the fast-forward button.
...
What if the game automatically reduced the acceleration down to 1x (or some levels) when your fleet is at a certain proximity to other relevant objects?
-
At 2x speed or more that proximity would need to be pretty large.. small fleet going at 150+ (300+) or more on the travel map, a small pirate fleet intersects you also going 120+ (240+) unless the proximity is almost a full screen away your not going to have time to react.. sure you can hit space and pause, but by the time you react I think it would be too late as even if you manage to pause before you engage, you still have to get your fleet to turn around..
And having a "feature" like that would annoy me more than it would help I think..
I just lost my fleet, I'm back in a shuttle, I have plenty of cash so I just want to get back to a orbital station so I can buy a new ship.. but I can't go very fast cause the game forces 1x speed whenever I get close to a small hostile fleet..
dunno about your games but in mine I end up getting tons and tons of small 1-3 ship fleets flying around.. Most of which are hostile to me..
-
Spam f5. A lot. Quicksave is kinda useful.
-
Well, if the game will have the time acceleration when it's ready, I feel it would need to have this implemented one way or another if time acceleration is going to stay. It's all about fine tuning the implementation. There's a lot of games that do this really well.
At least it can be an option to enable this behavior.
The example you gave about you limping back to base at 1x while a pursing fleet, preventing you from accelerate time, could be solved by the game ignoring proximity for objects that already have triggered the slow-down last time, so pressing the accelerate button would speed things up again.
-
Spam f5. A lot. Quicksave is kinda useful.
Then you will in all likelyhood end up in a situation where you quicksave right before you get brutally slaughtered by a fleet.. and since you quicksaved so close, your screwed.
Well, if the game will have the time acceleration when it's ready, I feel it would need to have this implemented one way or another if time acceleration is going to stay. It's all about fine tuning the implementation. There's a lot of games that do this really well.
At least it can be an option to enable this behavior.
The example you gave about you limping back to base at 1x while a pursing fleet, preventing you from accelerate time, could be solved by the game ignoring proximity for objects that already have triggered the slow-down last time, so pressing the accelerate button would speed things up again.
This could work, but Alex said it gets all Benny Hill beyond 2x, and I think 2x is just fine. but shall see.. just gotta wait a few days for Alex to put the finishing touches on it :)
-
Added fast-forward button (speeds up the campaign game 2x, bound to Shift by default)
instead of binding it to a button, how about we activate the time acceleration when you zoom completely out in the campaign? (it seems like it kind of does that already.)
-
Spam f5. A lot. Quicksave is kinda useful.
Then you will in all likelyhood end up in a situation where you quicksave right before you get brutally slaughtered by a fleet.. and since you quicksaved so close, your screwed.
mmm yeah I did that once - Overall, if youre paying attention, you tend to be able to do it without too much problem...
-
Once you have an Aurora, you're unstoppable. I was able to capture 5 Auroras and a variety of other craft, and at this point I can take on and completely destroy those 10-triangle Tri-Tachyon fleets (the ones with an Odyssey, multiple Auroras, and a Paragon) with NO CASUALTIES.
It helps that I have an absolutely broken loadout for my flagship Aurora; it can defeat any ship in the game in a 1v1 fight, and is utterly invincible when backed up by support craft.
Hull Mods
Stabilized Shields (This cuts down the flux usage by an incredible amount. Since you'll have shields up for the vast majority of the time in an Aurora, this is equivalent to about 20 flux vents and only costs 8 OP. There's a reason that this is on the Aurora by default.)
Extended Missile Racks (Holy ***, this is worth the money. Instead of being able to fire three salvos of the Harpoons and five Reaper torpedoes, I can fire five salvos of Harpoons and eight Reaper torpedoes. Nearly doubling the effective killing capabilities of this variant means that the extended racks are mandatory.)
Augmented Engines (This is well worth the exorbitant cost. Being able to keep up with and sometimes outrun a Medusa is amazingly useful. Few ships can get away from me using this mod, plus it allows circle strafing at a high enough speed to avoid many projectile weapons.)
Additional Thrusters (Or whatever it's called, this adds maneuverability to the ship so that it can turn very quickly. This is very useful for just about everything that this ship does, as it can keep the Pulse Lasers pointed on the enemy, it can swing the ship around to dodge missiles, it helps the ship strafe the enemy to avoid some projectile weapons, and it allows the torpedo tube to be used effectively.)
Weapons Group 1 (Linked)
2x Pulse Laser [Two front medium turrets] (This weapon is able to put the pressure on the enemy destroyer/cruiser/capship shields until they eventually drop, and has a good enough range to stay out of the way of most other weapons, and they are rapid-fire and turn fast enough to drop any and all fighter/bomber wings and frigates that come near. Seriously, I can just hold the trigger down and watch the destruction. The pulse laser is by far the best weapon in the game for its OP cost.)
Weapons Group 2 (Linked, Automatic)
3x IR Pulse Laser [Three front small turrets] (These help the full Pulse Lasers deal damage. The constant non-beam pressure brings down shields very effectively and is virtually impossible to dodge. Because of the volume of fire, missiles and fighters also fall prey to the dakkadakkadakkadakka.)
3x LR PD Laser [Two rear small turrets and one rear medium turret] (These offer extra missile protection from behind. Since the shields take a while to extend to the back, this is fairly important. Plus, you can swing the ship around with the increased turn speed to take out some missiles and fighters using these, if you really want to.)
Weapons Group 3
1x Cyclone Reaper Tube [Front heavy hardpoint] (We don't have enough OP for a Hurricane MIRV, so we use Reapers instead. This is very good for putting ships into overload since the damage is so high. And if the enemy ship drops their shields instead of going into overload...)
Weapons Group 4 (Linked)
4x Harpoon Rack [Four front small hardpoints] (Oh my God these things are godlike. These are linked because you will only need to fire these off all at once. With the extended racks, you get 5 salvos of 4 missiles, which is enough to drop a Paragon. Each salvo does 3,000 explosive damage, meaning that if you get the other ship to drop shields and you use your supercharged engines to swing around to the rear or an area of exposed hull, you can let loose with your IR Pulse Lasers, Pulse Lasers, the Reaper Tube, and -- most importantly -- the frontal Harpoons. Nothing survives.)
The rest of the OPs are used for Flux Vents. Being able to tank lots of hits while constantly pounding on the enemy with Pulse Lasers is very valuable.
The important part is the frontal array of Harpoons which give meaning to my flagship's name: ISS Ezio, Aurora-Class Assassin Cruiser. Being able to deal 15,000 explosive damage in five seconds is enormously powerful. As soon as you get behind an unshielded ship, that ship is ***.
-
I have to ask, will there come an ability to have MORE weapon groups for the larger capships?
-
I have to ask what you even need more groups for?
-
Not for the vanilla ships, I don't think, but for modded enormous capships, if can get quite cramped with those. So therefore my reasons.
-
I have to ask what you even need more groups for?
For more weapons, of course! ;D
More seriously, it is a bit cramped when you have a lot of weapons to see one weapon group take up more space then all three others in pictures.
-
1 sabot
2 harpoon
3 front/assault weapons
4 flak/pd
5 anti frigate side/rear
on a big ship
just an example
-
A 5° weapons group is needed for biggest ships. Also a one shot button (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=483.0)
-
We desperately need more weapon groups... Cruiser and above are where they are needed. 4 is fine for destroyers and frigates, but I often find myself wanting 5 for cruisers, and 6 or more for the cap ships. I make it work, but it isn't ideal...
-
Patch notes updated.
-
Patch notes updated.
I love you! :D (in a completely platonic way)
Also Love this game.. (in a completely non-platonic way)
-
Patch notes updated.
As i've read it, there's a chance that campaign mods won't be compatible with the new update, right?
But can this be solved by moving the neseccary files form data/scripts/world into data/scripts/world/corvus?
-
Whoa, nice changes... The targeting unit looks like it'll be very tempting for larger ships now... Very tempting indeed. Loving the changes!
-
Patch notes updated.
As i've read it, there's a chance that campaign mods won't be compatible with the new update, right?
But can this be solved by moving the neseccary files form data/scripts/world into data/scripts/world/corvus?
sounds to me like it depends on what files your mod is dependant on. if your mod depends on one of the files mentioned, then yes, it will be broken.. if not, I don't see why your mod would break..
I don't want to rush you Alex, but any idea when we can expect this to go live? not looking for a specific day or anything, just roughly, this week? next week? next month?
-
25% flux penalty for augmented engines seems very rough. Shouldn't the OP cost be slightly lower to compensate? Also does the 25% penalty affect vents or just the base?
-
Just the base. Percentage bonuses/penalties in SF always work off the base value. It's not that bad, still a good mod, just not an "of course I'll take it" one :)
-
Those new changes look really good, I'm especially happy about the integrated targeting unit change. Any idea when we might expect a release ;D?
-
don't know if its been fixed or not, but there is a small bug with tachyon lances, the ai will raise shields in anticipation of a beam (good), but they will lower the shields while the beam is still capable of doing damage, loosing a good chunk of armor in the process (bad).
-
SoonTM? ;)
Edit: Yeah I have noticed some weird issues with the AI in relation to shields... They will put them down at inopportune times. I think they should be set to be better safe than sorry...
-
Very soonTM. The build-has-already-been-uploaded kind of soon.
Most of those shield-related issues should be fixed.
Edit: aaaand it's out. Download here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2012/03/07/starfarer-0-51a-release/).
-
Why trademarks?
-
Whooooooooooo! This is going to be awesome. :D
-
Why trademarks?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Soon&defid=4387130
Blizzard's the reason for the trademarks :P.
And for once, Soonâ„¢ actually meant Soon, weird :P.
-
The trademarks are just to be funny. As has been discussed here: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1366.0 Bizzard didn't really start it. They are just known best for it because they are a large company. I actually first heard it from swcombine.com back before WoW was even released...
Anywho, super excited for this release... But bummed that I won't be able to play it today.. :(
-
I somehow screwed this up, so how do you make campaign mods compatible with the new update? :D
-
I somehow screwed this up, so how do you make campaign mods compatible with the new update? :D
You have to make sure that any imports your mods use point to the right place. That's the only "breaking" change.
It's a good idea to update your mod to use "getEntityByName" to get a hold of planets and such, too - instead of overwriting SectorGen.java.
-
Ok... What do i have to change in detail (the extends .... line) What should it point to?
-
ALT+F4
LEARN IT ALREADY
-
What??
-
He's probably talking about ALT+F4 and the close button still not working at all (in Windows installations, at least), requiring a game exit through the main menu. Not a big issue in my view, but I can imagine it being annoying to some.
Anyways, really nice update! I already went over all the bugs I reported and a few notable ones that other people reported, and found all of them to be fixed, so that's great. Going to have to spend some more time on it later, when the mods get ported over as well. Well done! ;)
-
What??
I think he's talking about the issue where clicking the red "X" at the top right when windowed, alt+F4, and alt-tab are all disabled in the game, albeit in a very rude way if he is.
Edit: Ninja'd
-
Right.... So any modder lucky enough to have ported over a campaign compatible mod into .51a which I can take example from (or Anyone knows what to actully do :D)
-
I think he's talking about the issue where clicking the red "X" at the top right when windowed, alt+F4, and alt-tab are all disabled in the game, albeit in a very rude way if he is.
Alt-tab should work - I use it all the time.
-
Could you maybe include a borderless windowed mode? I dont recall that being an option on the list (just windowed and fullscreen)
-
That talon buff made them like 3 times more useful =D
-
Wooo the new version is out, god I love this game!
-
You sir are a genious... literally
The balancing of the Hull mods is incredibly good...
hull mods that seemed useless before are now viable
also i like that the frigate Hull mods are way cheaper than before... you can now take 2 or 3 of the "little ones"
The AI...
i'm not too sure if i like it
i mean, it's really good...
but i got serious into trouble when the 3 hounds started cycling around me...
attacking my ship from every angle possible
-
Hotfix release: that fixes a crash bug when clicking on an empty slot in any orbital station inventory, a devmode-only save crash bug, and showing the correct version in the upper right corner.
The balancing of the Hull mods is incredibly good...
hull mods that seemed useless before are now viable
also i like that the frigate Hull mods are way cheaper than before... you can now take 2 or 3 of the "little ones"
Most of the credit there goes to David :)
The AI...
i'm not too sure if i like it
i mean, it's really good...
but i got serious into trouble when the 3 hounds started cycling around me...
attacking my ship from every angle possible
Hmm, well - there are ways to counter Hounds in particular - Salamander MRMs are really good for that. Also, the idea behind improving the Integrated Targeting Unit is to strengthen larger ships against frigates. But I do see your point - if AI is too good at something, that could get annoying. I'm trying to keep what it's good at to reasonable things - i.e., not stuff that's not humanly possible, with the AI blatantly taking advantage of its reaction times and such.
-
I think he's talking about the issue where clicking the red "X" at the top right when windowed, alt+F4, and alt-tab are all disabled in the game, albeit in a very rude way if he is.
Yes, that's what I was referring to. I do apologize for my rudeness, I was really angry at the time. When a game pisses me off I want it to get out of my sight immediately. Having to click through menus sends me into a boiling rage that mere words are incapable of expressing.
Though while I have my *** hat on, I might as well get this out of the way too: Having to actually type in "delete" in order to delete a saved game is one of the (if not the) stupidest user interface design decisions I have ever seen in over twenty years of using computers. Seriously, Alex, what the hell. It's... unfathomable. Why would you ever think that was a good idea. Please, I really want to know the rationale behind that. What was wrong with a simple "Are you sure? y/n" prompt?
-
Nice hotfix. I had just gotten that crash and found it reported already, and a few mins later here it is fixed.
Though while I have my *** hat on, I might as well get this out of the way too: Having to actually type in "delete" in order to delete a saved game is one of the (if not the) stupidest user interface design decisions I have ever seen in over twenty years of using computers. Seriously, Alex, what the hell. It's... unfathomable. Why would you ever think that was a good idea. Please, I really want to know the rationale behind that. What was wrong with a simple "Are you sure? y/n" prompt?
That's just to prevent people from accidentally deleting their favorite save. Some people can absentmindedly click right on through a y/n prompt. How often are you deleting save games, anyway?
If for some reason you make a bunch of extra save games you can always just go into the game folder and delete them there.
-
Is the hotfix supposed to break save compatibility? I have a save file from the first RC of 0.51a that is now failing to load.
-
That's just to prevent people from accidentally deleting their favorite save. Some people can absentmindedly click right on through a y/n prompt.
Then those people get what they deserve for not paying attention to what they're doing (and yes, I still think that despite being one of those people every once in a while).
I think taking care of the save files should be the responsibility of the user, not the developer. But if a developer still wants to make absolutely sure people don't lose their savegames, then IMO a much better way to do that would be to make the game simply move the file into the Recycle Bin so that accidentally removed savegames can still be recovered.
How often are you deleting save games, anyway?
You'd be surprised.
If for some reason you make a bunch of extra save games you can always just go into the game folder and delete them there.
By that logic there needn't be a delete save feature at all.
-
@Sordid: pretty much what Paul said. It's not an uncommon design decision, either. To name two games that do it, WoW and M&B.
Is the hotfix supposed to break save compatibility? I have a save file from the first RC of 0.51a that is now failing to load.
Ugh, yeah, it's possible - about a 50/50. Didn't think about that - sorry!
-
I'm not too sure if it was the game but in the middle of a fight something crashed my AMD Videodriver and my Java thingymajick...
i'm just going to assume that it wasn't the game, but will report back if it happens again
Most of the credit there goes to David
Thanks David!
Hmm, well - there are ways to counter Hounds in particular - Salamander MRMs are really good for that. Also, the idea behind improving the Integrated Targeting Unit is to strengthen larger ships against frigates. But I do see your point - if AI is too good at something, that could get annoying. I'm trying to keep what it's good at to reasonable things - i.e., not stuff that's not humanly possible, with the AI blatantly taking advantage of its reaction times and such.
No, No, don't get me wrong
i do like it very much...
it's actually a good thing that they are atleast a medium thread now and you can't kill infinite of them with any other frigate :P
-
I'm not too sure if it was the game but in the middle of a fight something crashed my AMD Videodriver and my Java thingymajick...
i'm just going to assume that it wasn't the game, but will report back if it happens again
The Java Runtime crashes my video driver too, occasionally. Haven't had it happen yet in Starfarer myself, but I've had a few of these issues in games like Minecraft which use it too.
Is the hotfix supposed to break save compatibility? I have a save file from the first RC of 0.51a that is now failing to load.
Ugh, yeah, it's possible - about a 50/50. Didn't think about that - sorry!
No problem, just wanted to be sure there wasn't some sort of new bug in play. Only had about 15-30 minutes into it, anyways. ;)
-
Though while I have my *** hat on, I might as well get this out of the way too: Having to actually type in "delete" in order to delete a saved game is one of the (if not the) stupidest user interface design decisions I have ever seen in over twenty years of using computers. Seriously, Alex, what the hell. It's... unfathomable. Why would you ever think that was a good idea. Please, I really want to know the rationale behind that. What was wrong with a simple "Are you sure? y/n" prompt?
I think the main reason is to give the player some pause before he or she deletes a save game. To me this might be a reference to instances where I've deleted save games unintentionally due to haste. I would have to agree with you though that this might seem like a bit too much work to delete a save game, most probably because I no longer delete things willy-nilly :P.
Edit: Ninja'd again
-
@Sordid: pretty much what Paul said. It's not an uncommon design decision, either. To name two games that do it, WoW and M&B.
I don't think the comparison with WoW is valid. WoW is a massive time and money sink, which coupled with the fact that AFAIK WoW savegames are stored on the servers justifies this. Not the case with Starfarer. The files are on our computers, if you want to make absolutely sure people don't lose their saves just move them into the Recycle Bin instead of removing them without a trace.
M&B does not in fact do that (well, Warband doesn't, I'm not installing the first one to find out; even if it has that it just means they dropped it from the sequel for a reason). It just has an ordinary prompt.
As for whether or not it's uncommon, that's one other game that has this feature. Against what, hundreds of games that don't? Possibly thousands? Again, I'm sorry to be so blunt about this, but "not uncommon" my butt.
-
That's just to prevent people from accidentally deleting their favorite save. Some people can absentmindedly click right on through a y/n prompt.
Then those people get what they deserve for not paying attention to what they're doing (and yes, I still think that despite being one of those people every once in a while).
I think this is a bit much, I'm not sure they deserve anything when they accidentally delete something from their computer. Whether they deserve it depends on a whole lot of other circumstances.
I think taking care of the save files should be the responsibility of the user, not the developer.
I think you might be confusing something here, the user does have the responsibility of their save games and the developer isn't taking any away from them. They just made the process of doing a particular task with the save file slightly more arduous than normal. It's like a bench drill having to insert the key before the machine turns on for safety's sake.
-
Personally, I think the "delete" typing is perfectly fine. I would prefer just a yes/no prompt, though. Not something really important, though.
-
Agreed with the last post. A yes/no would be preferable.
-
Don't know if this is something from the update or what, but I've hit three pirate fleets that didn't haven enough crew to man any of their ships, so i got a bunch of free ships for nothing
-
Yeah it's new and it happens somewhat regularly since the hegemony and tri-tach stomp them. You still have to catch them. I like it. It doesn't happen THAT often. What I personally love is trying to lure raiders into the system defense so I can mop up after. :D
So far love the patch. Balance changes are nice, and I LOVE buying the hulls since it makes them easier to get to, and you feel much more proud when you finally scrape together a ship worth piloting, haha. Am noticing the combat feels harder, but the over-game feels a little easier. Also the venture is my new favorite ship, medium missile slots are now completely awesome. :D
-
WOO FUKKEN HOOO! Time to delete all my saves and begin again! Goodbye life on Wednesday afternoon!
-
Thanks for the quick hotfix Alex!!!
There goes my sleep cycle :(
-
I think he's talking about the issue where clicking the red "X" at the top right when windowed, alt+F4, and alt-tab are all disabled in the game, albeit in a very rude way if he is.
Alt-tab should work - I use it all the time.
Yeah it works, to clear this up, I think I might have meant that the function doesn't work when an error comes up during the first loading screen.
-
The comment about the improved AI got me wondering, will different factions have different behaviors, e.g. the hegemmony will try to carefully flank, while the Cult of Lud doesn't bother and just goes in for the kill and traders are panicky and uncoordinated (or maybe certain captains do different things). Well you get the gist of my pondering.
Oh and somewhat unrelated would it be a good or bad idea for fog-of-war in system map (and detection of an object depends on its size) although this would only be a hindrance to you and not the AI...
-
Any idea of when we'll be able to navigate by clicking on the map? quite bothersome trying to go far when you need to click constantly.
-
Any idea of when we'll be able to navigate by clicking on the map? quite bothersome trying to go far when you need to click constantly.
You can now.
-
You didn't need to click constantly anyway, you just needed to hold down the button.
-
I'd like to weigh in on the "having to type d e l e t e to delete a saved game" issue that seems to be going back and forth; cease discussion. It is a Good Idea. Sorry, but users (that's us) are dumb. We do all kinds of *** where we need coddling and undo and when there's a high degree of friction between a user and a rarely used action with potentially infuriating consequences, it is a solid design decision.
Kids are angry about it; that is, until the feature saves their bacon on a 20-hour savefile.
-
Your faith in the average user is quite low it seems.
I have full faith in myself to not delete a game by accident. I mean, there's just no way. Loading a game requires 1 click. If there was a yes/no prompt there would be 2 clicks. Now, I could get confused if there was overwriting or loading saves, but as it stands aright now overwriting or loading saves takes one button click.
-
Yeah sorry should have tried playing it before i asked haha, its a goddamn dream now though i miss alot of the mods ship varietys and weapons but love the weaponless hulls! no more 60k of useless weapons on my onslaught!
-
Yeah, deleting several save files at once is kind of a pain, since you have to type "delete" over and over again. Perhaps it could be implemented to delete without a prompt, but provide an "Undo" button. Perform the actual deletion of the save files that have been marked for deletion when the save game dialog is closed, and allow recovery of the saves anytime before then (show the save as greyed out if marked for deletion). I find it to be a bit of a stretch to imagine that someone would accidentally delete their save game and then proceed to close the dialog as well.
-
have patience my fellow starfarers, typing delete just takes less than 2 seconds of your life, which i'm sure all of you can afford :P
-
Yeah, it's not much of an issue as I don't usually delete saves (main time was after I updated, since the save files aren't compatible), but I think it's all part of the streamlining to create a flawless 1.0 product. I think my above suggestion should work well in this case, unless it's particularly difficult to implement here for some reason.
-
I'd like to weigh in on the "having to type d e l e t e to delete a saved game" issue that seems to be going back and forth; cease discussion. It is a Good Idea. Sorry, but users (that's us) are dumb. We do all kinds of *** where we need coddling and undo and when there's a high degree of friction between a user and a rarely used action with potentially infuriating consequences, it is a solid design decision.
Kids are angry about it; that is, until the feature saves their bacon on a 20-hour savefile.
Feel free to proclaim that you're dumb all you want, Trylobot, but please don't presume to talk such rubbish on my behalf. I am not a child, I do not need training wheels on my bicycle, I do not need my car to beep at me when the lights are on and the engine isn't running, and I don't need a prompt that requires me to type "delete" to delete a save. Much like the beeping, I actually find it mildly insulting.
-
Feel free to proclaim that you're dumb all you want, Trylobot, but please don't presume to talk such rubbish on my behalf. I am not a child, I do not need training wheels on my bicycle, I do not need my car to beep at me when the lights are on and the engine isn't running, and I don't need a prompt that requires me to type "delete" to delete a save. Much like the beeping, I actually find it mildly insulting.
(http://i.imgur.com/w8XFV.gif)
-
Ugh ballistic weapons are horrible--my enforcer destroyer regularly gets overloaded and sits there not firing a shot because my weapons generate an absurd amount of flux. What the hell is the point of non energy weapons if they generate flux? Okim had the right idea, small ballistic weapons should generate 0 flux with their down sides being tracking and ammo dependency. If i'm forced to stick vulcans and MG's on my medium weapon slots because my flux gets overloaded constantly i should either get a massive ammo boost or have them generate no flux.
Its getting annoying as hell getting overloaded every single goddamn battle while i watch every single gun be silent because i cant fire them due to flux generation. If i had a choice for universal slots between energy weapons and ballistic weapons i'd choose energy hands down because i could put the points needed for extended magazines into flux/shield management and get a bigger bonus. The worst part is i know i'll have to get a TT ship because their so obviously better then the other options--ballistic weapons should be the balancing factor.
On the other hand the assault cannon is goddamn beautiful--made the mistake of selling them and now i'm actively hunting hounds hoping for more! I dont know if changed it recently but i remember them having around 400-500 range and a horrible ammo count and now they have 600 range and around 1000 rounds with extended mags!
I love the new missile system with the progressively larger slots but the missile speed is still absurd! Why are swarmers so slow? i mean its intended as an anti fighter missile yet a frigate can outrun it in a straight line and their a much bigger target then a fighter. Swarmers either need a speed boost or a range boost though i'd love a mix of both, if you've seen the raptor SRM pod from the mod forums that is how they should act!
The rocket missile speed could also use some work, their very predictable and quite useless when their not point blank. They should be like the sabot missiles where once fired they speed forward making them extremely hard to dodge though you'd still have to deal with the spread and their short range. I could see a torpedo like spread with the current rocket speed but if its small it should be extremely fast.
A small object with a massive engine shouldent take time to build up speed, it should either have an efficient slow engine like the pilum with great range or it should have an overcharged engine that slams it towards the target but doesnt have the fuel for massive correction.
-
Ugh ballistic weapons are horrible--my enforcer destroyer regularly gets overloaded and sits there not firing a shot because my weapons generate an absurd amount of flux. What the hell is the point of non energy weapons if they generate flux? Okim had the right idea, small ballistic weapons should generate 0 flux with their down sides being tracking and ammo dependency. If i'm forced to stick vulcans and MG's on my medium weapon slots because my flux gets overloaded constantly i should either get a massive ammo boost or have them generate no flux.
Its getting annoying as hell getting overloaded every single goddamn battle while i watch every single gun be silent because i cant fire them due to flux generation. If i had a choice for universal slots between energy weapons and ballistic weapons i'd choose energy hands down because i could put the points needed for extended magazines into flux/shield management and get a bigger bonus. The worst part is i know i'll have to get a TT ship because their so obviously better then the other options--ballistic weapons should be the balancing factor.
On the other hand the assault cannon is goddamn beautiful--made the mistake of selling them and now i'm actively hunting hounds hoping for more! I dont know if changed it recently but i remember them having around 400-500 range and a horrible ammo count and now they have 600 range and around 1000 rounds with extended mags!
I love the new missile system with the progressively larger slots but the missile speed is still absurd! Why are swarmers so slow? i mean its intended as an anti fighter missile yet a frigate can outrun it in a straight line and their a much bigger target then a fighter. Swarmers either need a speed boost or a range boost though i'd love a mix of both, if you've seen the raptor SRM pod from the mod forums that is how they should act!
The rocket missile speed could also use some work, their very predictable and quite useless when their not point blank. They should be like the sabot missiles where once fired they speed forward making them extremely hard to dodge though you'd still have to deal with the spread and their short range. I could see a torpedo like spread with the current rocket speed but if its small it should be extremely fast.
A small object with a massive engine shouldent take time to build up speed, it should either have an efficient slow engine like the pilum with great range or it should have an overcharged engine that slams it towards the target but doesnt have the fuel for massive correction.
*
I somewhat agree on the ballistic weapons, some are just plain dumb because of ammo dependancy, tracking and a massive amount of flux, but others work wonders. don't get me wrong, I find energy based weapons (specifically beam) superior in almost every manner.
Sure it takes a bit longer on the hull, but on the other hand I can fire indefinitely if my ship is rigged right..
About the swarmers and rockets I completely agree, the Annihilator rocket pod right now is a waste of space and OP.. It won't hit anything unless your point blank.. or it's a cap ship, in which case they won't really do anything anyways because of a lack of damage :P
It needs a speed boost.
Swarmers they track very well, but their short range and limited speed greatly hinder their usefulness..
I'd like to see them have maybe 1000 range, and 50% more speed?
-
Let's take all of these discussions into the Suggestions board (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?board=5.0), people. It's not like (most of) the things being discussed right now were newly added in 0.51a or anything. ;)
-
Swarmers are actually my missiles of choice for frigate class ships-- I tried them out recently and they actually pack quite a punch against other frigates. Makes my Tempest a very good hunter-killer. Plus, you get thirty of 'em.
-
Annihilators work fine if you know what you're using them for. They aren't there for damage, they are there for area denial and freaking out the enemy. They are also for point blank non-shield armor wrecking.
-
My problem with Annihilators is that the act of USING them requires enough concentration that it often locks your OWN vector down enough that it imposes a similar movement denial on you that it imposes on its target. That sounds confusing, but hopefully someone understand what I mean.
The biggest problem is its time-on-target. The relative velocity is just too slow.
-
My problem with Annihilators is that the act of USING them requires enough concentration that it often locks your OWN vector down enough that it imposes a similar movement denial on you that it imposes on its target. That sounds confusing, but hopefully someone understand what I mean.
The biggest problem is its time-on-target. The relative velocity is just too slow.
If I understand you, you mean that you concentrate so much on timing the launch right that you stop thinking about what the enemy is lining up on your ass.. meaning while you could get the perfect volley of annihilators off.. your likely to get 5 Harpoons up your tailpipe while doing it..
-
Given that my favorite loadout on my vigilance used a rocket pod & a phase beam, I'm inclined to say the rockets are fine. Sure, they're a bit tricky to use well, but even used poorly they're quite effective at forcing the AI to back off a bit.
Also, to people saying energy weapons are better: they're awesome for ripping apart low tech ships (i.e. pirates) - but they're actually sub-par against Tri-Tachyon ships. Since damage from beams can get vented while shields are still up, and all the energy projectile weapons have *really* high flux generation...
-
My problem with Annihilators is that the act of USING them requires enough concentration that it often locks your OWN vector down enough that it imposes a similar movement denial on you that it imposes on its target. That sounds confusing, but hopefully someone understand what I mean.
The biggest problem is its time-on-target. The relative velocity is just too slow.
If I understand you, you mean that you concentrate so much on timing the launch right that you stop thinking about what the enemy is lining up on your ass.. meaning while you could get the perfect volley of annihilators off.. your likely to get 5 Harpoons up your tailpipe while doing it..
thats why you need maverick and Goose to watch your six for you insert highway to the danger zone here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o
-
My problem with Annihilators is that the act of USING them requires enough concentration that it often locks your OWN vector down enough that it imposes a similar movement denial on you that it imposes on its target. That sounds confusing, but hopefully someone understand what I mean.
The biggest problem is its time-on-target. The relative velocity is just too slow.
If I understand you, you mean that you concentrate so much on timing the launch right that you stop thinking about what the enemy is lining up on your ass.. meaning while you could get the perfect volley of annihilators off.. your likely to get 5 Harpoons up your tailpipe while doing it..
Yeah, basically. I'm more of a missiles and gun guy.
-
Anyone else finding the new mechanic where you slow down after winning a battle really annoying? i keep getting wiped by pirate armada's because i cant get away after picking off the small pirate fleets around their station.
-
Pro tip: Don't camp their station in the early start :D
-
Not annoying to me. It is mega harsh, but you also chose to take on a force right next to a bunch of fleets you couldn't beat. (shrug)
Just something to be careful of. (I learned my lesson the hard way like 10 times before I decided to pick a better spot to camp, haha)
-
My problem with Annihilators is that the act of USING them requires enough concentration that it often locks your OWN vector down enough that it imposes a similar movement denial on you that it imposes on its target. That sounds confusing, but hopefully someone understand what I mean.
The biggest problem is its time-on-target. The relative velocity is just too slow.
If I understand you, you mean that you concentrate so much on timing the launch right that you stop thinking about what the enemy is lining up on your ass.. meaning while you could get the perfect volley of annihilators off.. your likely to get 5 Harpoons up your tailpipe while doing it..
Yeah, basically. I'm more of a missiles and gun guy.
I'd love to have a big fat ship with a ton of missiles (missile boat) and some PD for defense, but missiles don't have enough ammo to make that viable.. and modding it in would mean the lashers and such become a royal pain in the behind.. endless volleys of harpoons, Salamanders and Sabots..
It would be nice if bigger ships got bigger magazines for weapons.. and/or larger bonus from expanded magazines/missileracks..
Hmm, this should be in suggestions.. I think I'll go post it there..
-
Buffalos are pretty good missile boats. I've used them all the way up to the mid game. Slap some heavy armor on that ***.
-
Also, to people saying energy weapons are better: they're awesome for ripping apart low tech ships (i.e. pirates) - but they're actually sub-par against Tri-Tachyon ships. Since damage from beams can get vented while shields are still up, and all the energy projectile weapons have *really* high flux generation...
I haven't read what you were responding to, but I just had to mention...
I find that energy weapons are even more terrible vs low tech ships in general, actually. Low tech ships tend to have ballistic weapons, which very often means at least a mix of kinetic damage. You are guaranteed to lose, all other things being equal, when you pit ships that rely on shields and energy weapons against ships with high armor and plenty of kinetic/explosive ballistics.
All they have to do is machinegun your shields down and then casually tear apart your inferior armor/hull. Meanwhile, your only options in response are gravitons, which are so piddly that most ships ignore them just with their regular flux dissipation, nevermind their laughable damage vs armor and hull and inferiority vs even machineguns, and then there are sabots, which are ultra limited by ammo, and are chewed up effortlessly by flak.
Higher tech ships that spew beams and pulses and energy blasts already generate a ton of flux on themselves, don't do that great against shields, and have terrible point defense that can't even begin to compare to the likes of their ballistic counterparts.
The only real advantage of high tech ships is their speed, which the AI is not even close to utilizing like the player can.
-
It really depends on scale of ship involved; my current all-energy medusa loadout chews up entire pirate fleets, but would have a hard time bringing down the shields of another medusa, and would totally fail to even breach shields against a high tech capital ship of any sort - whereas it's quite capable of taking down an onslaught (or any lesser low-tech ship) in 1v1 combat. (Or, more commonly, 2+v1 - though with onslaughts that might give me trouble; I haven't bothered with any pd weapons, and 8x pilum launcher might actually be a bit much for my shields to handle.)
And I'm not sure where you're getting your "only options in response are gravitons" comment from. Gravitons are good for range & flux-efficiency; they're not otherwise particularly strong weapons. Pulse lasers or antimatter blasters are typically better for taking down enemy shields.
As far as sabots... May I suggest dodging? They're not the world's most accurate missiles, especially if you're staying out of point blank range. (And you should be staying out of point blank range, for the aforementioned reason of machine guns.)
-
... All they have to do is machinegun your shields down ...
Machine guns are indeed a shield killer if you let the enemy close to within 400 (for heavy, less for regular) distance of you. If they are faster than you and can hunt you down then you are indeed in trouble, but high tech ships are the fastest in their class so can severely punish anything that can catch them. High tech and low tech ships play very differently and must be piloted differently - I have huge problems adjusting between the two.
Energy weapons tend to have longer range and are much more accurate than their ballistic counterparts. Add into that the superiority of high tech dodging and I'd say things are about even.
-
Yep. Range + inherent speed of high tech ships is what makes energy weapons powerful, not the raw statistics of it. Although that's a bit more even now that most big guns have gotten a substantial range boost (thank you Alex).
-
It also has to do with shields and ammo also, omni shields can ensure you'll never get through unless the other guy makes a mistake and energy weapons never run out of ammo so your not limited in long battles and you'll eventually breach the shields but ammo dependent weapons can be waited out for you to win the battle. It should be no surprise the medusa is the best destroyer because of its all energy load out and good flux/shield, if you look at the ballistic version of the medusa you see the massive differences.
I've won many lop sided battles because i out lasted the enemys ammo so if every ballistic weapon realistically needs to include the extended mag upgrade to be feasible. Ballistic weapons should be OP but their weakness should be their ammo supply so while short term you'd destroy energy weapons in the long term they'd destroy you unless you took the upgrade.
The ballistic medusa will deal out absurd amounts of damage for very low flux debt but if you dont get the job done quickly you'd better hope you brought extended mags because all of your weapons are now useless.
A very clear balance line needs to be drawn to avoid mono setups where you only equip 4 different weapons continually because theres no reason not to. I was at first against okims(not modder biased he just is the only one with this) 4 versions of explosive large cannons all being slightly different from each other until i realized that they provided nearly unlimited equipping options for that perfect settup. Its human to standardize but its also boring as hell, i want 6 versions of hellbore cannons each with their different pros and cons and i dont want to totally skip them for the 6 versions of the tachyon lance because its clearly better.
-
In my experience, I've never had to an occurrence where my opponent nor I ran out of ammunition, even for protracted fights I tend to have a fair deal of ammunition by the end of it. I simply don't know what you're talking about of ships running out of ammunition being that much of a significant factor. I think it more or less applies only to the player doesn't it? Enemy ships don't tend to stick around for all that long in my experience. And since you're the main person that the issue centres around, using extended magazines just seems like a natural idea.
How strung out are your engagements that the phenomenon of your ships or ship running out of ammunition takes place regularly :-\?
-
I've run out of ammo before, specifically when I was running a Hammerhead as my flagship in the midgame. Enemy ships with strong shields are hard to kill with assault cannons, especially if you're out of sabots.
-
One of my favourite parts of the update is the increased save speed.
-
Thing that is killing me is what can we expect in next update? Maybe some missions? Character skills? New system?
-
When i roll with my thrasher equipped with 2 rear MG's 1 needler 2 mortars and swarmers i run out of ammo with auto pilot against 2-3 frigates--with extended mags that same settup finishes 20-30% ammo against 3-1 odds and exhausts it if you throw in well shielded destroyers.
I have ships running out of ammo regularly in almost every battle unless their given extended mags--i dont even equip MG's anymore without extended mags because i've watched my support frigates die to a missile barrage when they used all 1000 rounds. I've had my all ballistic onslaught with extended mags empty and killed 2 cruisers by ramming them--this is with okims weapons that had 1500 rounds with extended mags. Theres a great trick for ramming where the AI lowers its shields to squeeze out the flux and you can lower yours last minute for a wonderful ram.
How the hell are you not running out of ammo? i mostly let the AI fight but when it gets hairy i take over and do wonderful human things like ram or take a full broadside to overload another BS before my bombers and missiles sweep in.
-
(stuff)
Graviton beams are the only kinetic damage energy weapon. As per their description, they are supposed to be specifically for damaging shields, which they are horrible at, because they're beam weapons and because their damage is tiny.
Pulse lasers are indeed better at damaging shields. They generate obscene amounts of flux on your own ship, though, and the damage per shot is not very good, and ends up just being average. It is a ridiculous waste to use antimatter blasters against shields in particular unless it is a very special situation, as they generate 1500 flux on you every time you fire one, for a mere 1000 damage on enemy shields (minus shield efficiency, so much, much less on 0.8 and lower shield absorption ratios). There's a very good reason AM blasters are classified as strike weapons. Clever maneuvering on a player controlled ship can mitigate these drawbacks, however, and make it possible to take advantage of unique openings that AI would miss, but that's only relevant in small-scale, small-fleet, beginner campaign situations. We're talking about balance for the entire game here, and taking large fleets into consideration.
You also seem to have misread what I typed, as I was talking about sabots as options FOR high tech ships, not AGAINST them. With that in mind, you raise another point that strengthens my own, that they are very slow and easy to dodge and destroy.
As for your experience with pure-energy-loadout medusa, it should be easy enough, I imagine, to outlast an Onslaught's ammo supply, and/or circle around to its unshielded rear and do quick strike runs until it's dead while avoiding its attacks. That's the advantage of player-controlled ships. Of course, that was not at all my point, and furthermore is an idea that quickly falls apart when you get past the beginning campaign stages and actually have your team AI battling enemy AI.
(things)
Firstly, it does not follow that simply being fast means that a ship can punish anything that can catch it. If you meant maneuverability, that can be true for player controlled ships, which is but one small facet of the game's entirety considering potential fleet sizes, but even then a given ship can all too easily be extremely outclassed when its focus is shields at the expense of armor and hull when the enemy has plenty of kinetic damage to pour on, especially since explosive damage is commonly accompanying it in ballistics.
Secondly, there is absolutely no shortage of high range ballistics, especially kinetic damage based ones. Off the top of my head, there are railguns, needlers, hypervelocity drivers, autocannons, which range from 600 to, what, 1000 range? They are often extremely fast projectiles, have tons of ammunition, and deal way, way more damage to shields than the flux they generate on the user from firing them. And that's just in the small ballistics category. Energy weapons do not compare in range, and the ones that compare in accuracy are beams, which are useless against shields.
(words)
Again, you're only considering early game, tiny fleet sizes, and the single player-controlled ship in small scale battles. Also, there is no "ballistic medusa" in the base game, you're thinking of a mod. If it was just a reference for the sake of comparison, I would mention the ballistic version of the hyperion frigate from the same mod, which is vastly superior to its energy counterpart. Try it. 2 dual MGs in front 2 mounts, 1 annihilator pod on each of the 2 med missile mounts. Extend missile ammo for more lackadaisical barrages, and enjoy dispatching ships two size categories larger with ease because you can break their shields in seconds. Works against entire fleets, even ones containing the weaker capital ships. Just one ballistic frigate.
The medusa looks good on paper, and its maneuverability alone lends it unarguable advantages when in the hands of the player, but in practice and in actual fleet battles of even moderate size, they fall apart to the superior combination of kinetic and explosive ballistic weapons, nevermind missiles flying around that PD beams cannot even begin to handle.
All of you guys should really try pitting decent sized or higher, equal fleets of high tech ships with equal crew level against low tech fleets. The advantage of kinetic damage is obvious, and nobody survives long enough for ammo to run out except on missiles (which high tech ships often rely on to make up for their lack of armor or shield damaging capabilities).
-
You seem to be under the impression that endgame == large fleets - which is, certainly, one possibility (as long as you're not one of those crazy people who's gathered over 200 points of ships...), but has been stated by the devs that it's not meant to be the only option; that a captain of a single elite vessel (plus escorts) is also a perfectly viable endgame.
So yes, I'm exactly considering smaller fleet sizes, and the player controlled ship, because to me, that's what's important in this game; if I'm flying one paragon out of 12, something has gone wrong. I'm not really interested in playing the game as just another RTS; I don't like that sort of game.
-
Hull mods:
- Augmented Engines: 25% flux dissipation penalty
- Integrated Targeting Unit: reduced cost, range bonus is 10/20/35/50%, depending on hull size
- Advanced Optics: also reduces turret turn rate by 50%
- Insulated Engine Assembly: also increases hull integrity by 10%
- Armored Weapon Emplacements: also increases ship's armor rating by 10%
- Resistant Flux Condutis: also increases flux dissipation by 10%
If a mod has a downside it should be cheaper, augmented engines are already too expensive for most ships and I feel like this will just make it useless. Same goes with optics, your point defenses are now useless. A lot of mods are like this, why would I put on an omni shield if i have to castrate my weapons AND have my shields be less potent in a fight against more than one enemy. If anything, make mods wither only have bonuses at the cost of OP, or make them carry trade-offs but cost no OP. Either or both will work, but don't ask for five to ten weapon's worth of space just to install a mod that penalizes you for it's use anyway.
-
Yeah, Augmented engines being debuffed makes it pretty useless. It does not matter whether it's on large or small ships, it already eats a chunk out of flux dissipation or weapons, making the ship more fragile or weaker just for speed. Debuffing it even further like this makes the ship either unbelievably more fragile or both fragile and weaker, just for speed.
I cannot think of any ship that would benefit at the cost. Onslaught, Paragon, Medusa... It just turns a viable strategy into a bad strategy.
-
Wasps now cost more and have green rank, alex what happened to not messing with wasps? It even screws with the stats, as they have penalties to their stats due to being green.
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
I'm really not digging many of these changes, they just compounded previous problems. Docks are just as if not more worthless than ever. It's much harder to build up a competent fleet now due to weapon loss from board/surrendering, and just in general turns me off of playing it. The crew loss on ships is even worse now, I don't like these changes one bit. Back to teamfortress 2 we go~
I don't want to play a game this slow.
-
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.
Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.
-
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.
Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.
Because we all know that what the game needed more was an even slower start...
Just bleh, I need a save editor so I can skip all this nonsense.
-
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
It's much harder to build up a competent fleet now due to weapon loss from board/surrendering.
i think that's working as intended, he wanted the process of aquiring weapons be a more meaningfull process
Yeah, Augmented engines being debuffed makes it pretty useless. It does not matter whether it's on large or small ships, it already eats a chunk out of flux dissipation or weapons
I cannot think of any ship that would benefit at the cost. Onslaught, Paragon, Medusa... It just turns a viable strategy into a bad strategy.
Problem is that it wasn't "viable" before...
it was too powerfull of a hull mod, gotta balance somewhere... increasing the OP cost would've caused similiar issues
same with the advanced optics... it's way too cheap/powerfull for the amount of range it provides compared to the targetting AI
also it's "only" 25% off the base flux venting... a hound for example only suffers a 25 flux dissipation penalty
-
Finally got to play yesterday. Really like the changes! I started off with a vigilance frigate (first time flying one actually) and it was pretty interesting.. It had a medium Harpoon MRM which is totally awesome!
So I gotta say, the hounds are a pain in the butt now! But I like it. They actually take a bit of work to kill... Plus the Talons actually survive more than 20 seconds now, it is great. Really like the refitting changes and that the ships in station come with no weapons. Good changes all around!
-
You seem to be under the impression that endgame == large fleets - which is, certainly, one possibility (as long as you're not one of those crazy people who's gathered over 200 points of ships...), but has been stated by the devs that it's not meant to be the only option; that a captain of a single elite vessel (plus escorts) is also a perfectly viable endgame.
So yes, I'm exactly considering smaller fleet sizes, and the player controlled ship, because to me, that's what's important in this game; if I'm flying one paragon out of 12, something has gone wrong. I'm not really interested in playing the game as just another RTS; I don't like that sort of game.
I did make the assumption that you merely weren't considering the AI's handle on ship balance because you hadn't gotten very far. My mistake. I also often enjoy single-ship play, which I hope remains viable in the campaign as development progresses.
Still, my point remains. You weren't considering AI ship control, which is a very large part of the game that cannot be ignored, even if you restrict yourself to a single ship.
Kinetic damage trumps high tech ships that rely on shields, while energy weapons cannot compare to the range and power of their ballistic counterparts, all other things being equal.
-
Hull mods:
- Augmented Engines: 25% flux dissipation penalty
- Integrated Targeting Unit: reduced cost, range bonus is 10/20/35/50%, depending on hull size
- Advanced Optics: also reduces turret turn rate by 50%
- Insulated Engine Assembly: also increases hull integrity by 10%
- Armored Weapon Emplacements: also increases ship's armor rating by 10%
- Resistant Flux Condutis: also increases flux dissipation by 10%
If a mod has a downside it should be cheaper, augmented engines are already too expensive for most ships and I feel like this will just make it useless. Same goes with optics, your point defenses are now useless. A lot of mods are like this, why would I put on an omni shield if i have to castrate my weapons AND have my shields be less potent in a fight against more than one enemy. If anything, make mods wither only have bonuses at the cost of OP, or make them carry trade-offs but cost no OP. Either or both will work, but don't ask for five to ten weapon's worth of space just to install a mod that penalizes you for it's use anyway.
I don't agree with any of this.
The intent behind the change to augmented engines seems obvious to me-- it's to balance out the obvious advantages in map control by frigates. Basically, with the way it is now, you can have a pretty good point capping frigate or hunter killer, but it will be less valuable as a ship of the line. The penalty to flux dissipation is especially pronounced in cruisers and capital ships, which, again, is obviously intended given that those ships are much slower and rely on shields and weaponry to protect themselves, not high speed maneuver. It also makes sense. Modding a little engine isn't the same as modding a warship's massive reactor-- the penalties for the warship will be much more noticeable.
The entire thrust of your argument appears to be that you don't believe in hull mods that requires some kind of tradeoff, and that seems kind of ridiculous to me. The tactical benefits of some hull mods clearly outweigh their deficiencies in some classes of ship.
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.
Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.
Because we all know that what the game needed more was an even slower start...
Just bleh, I need a save editor so I can skip all this nonsense.
You don't need a save editor, you need a basic understanding of how to open a file in notepad and change a few variables.
And yeah, this game DID need a slower start. It's building toward being, you know, an actual GAME, not a loosely connected series of battle simulators.
-
Okay, I can kinda see the point on specialized "capping" frigates in a large fleet.
Aside from that, I've seen exactly three situations where the new augmented engines is usable:
1: On a ship I just captured, that I plan on selling. Mod it to have auto-repair & augmented engines (for improved non-combat speed).
2: On a slow carrier, where I care more about non-combat speed than direct combat capability.
3: On a vigilance class frigate that's been equipped with a graviton beam - the only combination I've found where the penalty isn't crippling. (Though I'll admit, I haven't checked out every ship; it's possible that a graviton beam armed tempest would be similarly usable.) Still, this is more of a comment on the graviton beam being exceptionally flux-efficient, than it is on the penalty being reasonable.
As such, I think the 25% penalty is a bit much - between that and the high ordnance point cost, it's just not viable for much of anything. (Footnote: Once character progression is in, and we can get bonus OP on our flagship, this may change.)
I've seen no situations where the new advanced optics is worth using. None. In fact, I've been putting the increased turret tracking speed mod on everything that uses beam weapons, and they *still* have issues with losing target lock if I'm not careful with my maneuvering.
Fortunately, the new integrated targeting unit can (mostly) replace advanced optics, especially for larger ships.
-
I use advanced optics ALWAYS on close support wolves. Or anything with grav beams or tac lasers.
Tac lasers are too slow already to care, so it's SO much more useful to have extra range. And the same is mostly true of grav beams/phase beam. It's not really meant for pd, but it is still a gimme for assault lasers. I think it's a fair tradeoff.
-
Okay, I can kinda see the point on specialized "capping" frigates in a large fleet.
Aside from that, I've seen exactly three situations where the new augmented engines is usable:
1: On a ship I just captured, that I plan on selling. Mod it to have auto-repair & augmented engines (for improved non-combat speed).
2: On a slow carrier, where I care more about non-combat speed than direct combat capability.
3: On a vigilance class frigate that's been equipped with a graviton beam - the only combination I've found where the penalty isn't crippling. (Though I'll admit, I haven't checked out every ship; it's possible that a graviton beam armed tempest would be similarly usable.) Still, this is more of a comment on the graviton beam being exceptionally flux-efficient, than it is on the penalty being reasonable.
As such, I think the 25% penalty is a bit much - between that and the high ordnance point cost, it's just not viable for much of anything. (Footnote: Once character progression is in, and we can get bonus OP on our flagship, this may change.)
I've seen no situations where the new advanced optics is worth using. None. In fact, I've been putting the increased turret tracking speed mod on everything that uses beam weapons, and they *still* have issues with losing target lock if I'm not careful with my maneuvering.
Fortunately, the new integrated targeting unit can (mostly) replace advanced optics, especially for larger ships.
I put augmented engines on Tempests with elite crews. It makes them so fast that the few points they lose in flux related stuff doesn't even matter since they can outfight any other frigate or fighter wing. They're basically unstoppable point cappers.
Recently, I started putting Atropos torpedo racks on them, and started using them as extremely fast torpedo boats. I'll let the forum know how that works out.
-
Problem is that it wasn't "viable" before...
it was too powerfull of a hull mod, gotta balance somewhere... increasing the OP cost would've caused similiar issues
That is incorrect. Percentage loss CANNOT be compared to a flat loss (AKA OP cost increase).
And about balance... The ship would be very fragile or much weaker for a small gain. It already cut a bit out of most ships. For example, on a Hammerhead having it already left me with two options: Kill flux dissipation, or take off a main gun. That's already pretty balanced.
This would force me to either massively ruin my frontal guns down to equal firepower of a hound, or have flux dissipation so bad that I would have a hard time firing my main guns or protecting myself from missiles. Effectively turning a nice equilateral triangle of engines-dissipation-weapons into... well, think up a shape, I can't.
I would never put Augmented Engines on any ships that aren't expendable or massively slow if it turned out like that.
also it's "only" 25% off the base flux venting... a hound for example only suffers a 25 flux dissipation penalty
Where does it say "base"?
The intent behind the change to augmented engines seems obvious to me-- it's to balance out the obvious advantages in map control by frigates. Basically, with the way it is now, you can have a pretty good point capping frigate or hunter killer, but it will be less valuable as a ship of the line.
Yes, perhaps. Though the thing is that the cost is too high for a slight increase. The ship wouldn't be just less valuable, it would be nearly useless.
The penalty to flux dissipation is especially pronounced in cruisers and capital ships, which, again, is obviously intended given that those ships are much slower and rely on shields and weaponry to protect themselves, not high speed maneuver. It also makes sense.
Yes it makes more sense for capital ships to suffer more, but all ships would suffer pretty bad from the nerf as far as I can tell.
I put augmented engines on Tempests with elite crews. It makes them so fast that the few points they lose in flux related stuff doesn't even matter since they can outfight any other frigate or fighter wing. They're basically unstoppable point cappers.
That's kinda biased because Tempests are the fastest ships in the game next to the hound.
-
Too much? I don't think so. I didn't even notice that there was a change in flux dissipation until yesterday, and I'd been flying a Tempest myself all that time.
Map control is way, way, too good. The flux dissipation nerf is just there to balance that out. Besides, capital ships way faster now and, at least in the case of my lovely Conquest, don't even need the augmented engines anymore. I got it going 177 with a few Nav Buoys :D.
-
Oh, I just realized that the changes are already in effect. I must look kinda like an idiot now.
So, everyone mentally change all my arguments that insist that the change was coming and replace it with something more sensible.
And I forfeit my argument on it not saying base because it does in fact affect only the base.
I forfeit most or all of my arguments on the matter entirely, in fact. Except for the un-strike-through(ed) ones.
That still does not make me happy with the changes, though.
-
That is incorrect. Percentage loss CANNOT be compared to a flat loss (AKA OP cost increase).
And about balance...
It can and i will...
What does the decrease in Flux dissipation do?
I need to spend more OP on Flux vents, to even out the flux dissipation and "make up" for the losses
Or, i can't use certain weapons anymore because they produce too much flux for the reduced dissipation rate and have to switch to weaker guns
What does Change in OP do?
You can't spend as many Points on Flux vent's because you don't have that much points (resulting in reduced flux dissipation)
Or, you run out of points to Mount Big/good guns and have to mount weaker guns/cheaper ones
Y did we get the %age based nerf?
Because the OP of a ship mainly depend on the amount of Mount's it has, it will atleast have enough OP that you can mount a properly sized weapon in each slot
A increase in OP cost would've impacted the ships with less Mounts/OP more than other ships
The %age based nerf aims at the Flux dissipation Rate, this usually goes up the more "high tech" ships get...
theese "high tech ships" are generally very fast to begin with and should benefit less from this mod
However, the "older" ships, relying on ballistic mount and armor to protect themself benefit more
Especially the Hound!
I think this is the reasoning behind this choice
-
It really depends on the ship. As noted, there are some ship / armament combinations where a 25% nerf to flux isn't a big deal. But they're usually ones that had good flux dissipation to start with, combined with exceptionally flux-efficient armament.
And, ok, I can see actually using advanced optics on a wolf, when you're treating its turrets as if they were all fixed-forward guns that don't need to turn. But anything that actually uses turrets as turrets... bleh. I used to combine advanced optics with pd lasers; that's not really viable anymore.
-
And, ok, I can see actually using advanced optics on a wolf, when you're treating its turrets as if they were all fixed-forward guns that don't need to turn. But anything that actually uses turrets as turrets... bleh. I used to combine advanced optics with pd lasers; that's not really viable anymore.
Yeah I hear you there. I do think the nerf was necessary, though. It was just too much.
-
Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want. Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost? I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.
Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.
Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.
Because we all know that what the game needed more was an even slower start...
Just bleh, I need a save editor so I can skip all this nonsense.
The saves are in .xml files, you can edit them with notepad or any other text editor. :P
-
It can and i will...
What does the decrease in Flux dissipation do?
I need to spend more OP on Flux vents, to even out the flux dissipation and "make up" for the losses
Or, i can't use certain weapons anymore because they produce too much flux for the reduced dissipation rate and have to switch to weaker guns
What does Change in OP do?
You can't spend as many Points on Flux vent's because you don't have that much points (resulting in reduced flux dissipation)
Or, you run out of points to Mount Big/good guns and have to mount weaker guns/cheaper ones
You danced around my question. You did not compare percentage to flat.
Let's say a ship has a base flux dissipation of 2000. After AE, it has 500 less. Let's say AE costs 20 OP. To compensate, you need to spend 50 OP.
Let's try another ship of the same class with a base dissipation of 1000, 250 less after AE. AE costs the same. To compensate, you have to spend 25 OP.
Let's just increase the OP cost to fit the first ship and remove the percentage penalty.
The first ship has to spend 70 OP to get AE now.
While the second ship, guess what, has to spend 70 OP too!
So, let's try setting AE's OP to 25 now.
Well, the first ship now has 25 extra OP!
See, they show different results.
-
Let's say a ship has a base flux dissipation of 2000. After AE, it has 500 less. Let's say AE costs 20 OP. To compensate, you need to spend 50 OP.
Let's try another ship of the same class with a base dissipation of 1000, 250 less after AE. AE costs the same. To compensate, you have to spend 25 OP.
Let's just increase the OP cost to fit the first ship and remove the percentage penalty.
The first ship has to spend 70 OP to get AE now.
While the second ship, guess what, has to spend 70 OP too!
So, let's try setting AE's OP to 25 now.
Well, the first ship now has 25 extra OP!
See, they show different results.
First of all i have to say that you are exaggerating it a bit...
1000 flux dissipation is the maximum amount of flux dissipation a current ship has, so your comparison is kinda inflating the numbers a bit
even if you take 2 ships where one has DOUBLE the amount of flux dissipation that the other ship has... with the bigger one having 1000 flux dissipation, your numbers get cut to half, this is for cruisers where AE really should be a heavy investment
also you still need to consider that you don't necessarily have to compensate the losses.... you could adjust your weapon setup to use less flux or OP, this is what balancing is about
But, that wasn't my Point...
My point was that this system is SUPPOSED to make AE a more costly investment for "High tech" ships (those have high flux dissipation rates)
the effect you are describing is actually what it wants to achieve
reason might be that "high tech" ships were extremly strong with the AE boost, also they are generally very fast to begin with so that you ended up with "too fast" ships
to make up for it you have to spend an amount of OP depending on your flux dissipation rate
this is generally 25% of base dissipation /10 flux dissipation/OP = 1-3 OP (on standart frigates 100-300 flux dissipation)
a flat increase in OP would nerf AE in an entirely different aspect
ships with more weapon mount have gernally more OP
a flat increase in OP, let's say 3... will be a more costly investment to a ship with 30 total OP (10%) than on a ship with 60 OP [for easier numbers] (5%)
this will affect ships with a lot of weapon mounts less than ships with less weapon mounts
you would balance different ships
(this would be usefull if ships with a lot of weapon mounts were too strong with AE, like... the lasher)
-
First of all i have to say that you are exaggerating it a bit...
1000 flux dissipation is the maximum amount of flux dissipation a current ship has, so your comparison is kinda inflating the numbers a bit
Inflation does not matter for my point.
also you still need to consider that you don't necessarily have to compensate the losses.... you could adjust your weapon setup to use less flux or OP, this is what balancing is about
That does not matter for my point.
But, that wasn't my Point...
My point was that this system is SUPPOSED to make AE a more costly investment for "High tech" ships (those have high flux dissipation rates)
the effect you are describing is actually what it wants to achieve
reason might be that "high tech" ships were extremly strong with the AE boost, also they are generally very fast to begin with so that you ended up with "too fast" ships
I am not arguing against this.
You are missing my point. My point is flat OP cost cannot be compared to the percentage reduction.
-
You are missing my point. My point is flat OP cost cannot be compared to the percentage reduction.
ofc... we could just for the sake of it turn it into a math discussion instead of a gameplay discussion
But... we could do that
you would need to take a look at the variants and look at the amount of "customization" OP that are available to spend on vents/capacitors
when we got this number... we can get the max. possible flux dissipation of that variant
then we can go ahead and evaluate how much % of the total flux dissipation a certain increase in OP cost is for that variant
we got ourself a way to give a flat OP increase a % value...
now we can compare this % value with the impact a 25% reduction of the base dissipation has
this leads us to what i described previously
the current system gives a bigger penalty to ships with a high base dissipation
a flat increase gives a bigger penalty to ships with less spare OP/ a lower total dissipation
the current system will harm your total dissipation even if you have enough OP for maximum vents while having AE
a flat increase will not harm your total dissipation if you have enough OP for maximum vents, but it will force you to free up OP if you can't afford the higher price to begin with
-
errr... what is AE
the change to Augmented engines didn't affect the way i played the game.. i didn't consider them worth the cost before the nerf so i didn't use them then. now i just have extra incentive to not use them.
i tend to try and fit the biggest weapons i can on my ships so an augmentation has to really be good or help most/all of my weapons systems for me to consider it. and since i am using the largest guns i can my OP are at a serious premium considering how few you get at the moment in the alpha. (with no level up skills implemented yet)
-
ofc... we could just for the sake of it turn it into a math discussion instead of a gameplay discussion
Oh really, you're trying to make me look like someone who's trying to derail the thread? When I'm just defending my points?
But... we could do that
you would need to take a look at the variants and look at the amount of "customization" OP that are available to spend on vents/capacitors
when we got this number... we can get the max. possible flux dissipation of that variant
then we can go ahead and evaluate how much % of the total flux dissipation a certain increase in OP cost is for that variant
we got ourself a way to give a flat OP increase a % value...
now we can compare this % value with the impact a 25% reduction of the base dissipation has
Hull, not Variant. But regardless, fine then, I'll compare the Condor and Medusa, two extremes. This is assuming they can spend all their points into flux reduction. If you want to do it with restrictions, be my guest.
No AE:
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation without AE is 460
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation without AE is 1300
If AE is percentage:
AE costs for both is 15 OP, what it is in-game.
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation with AE is 282.5 Loss: 38.6%
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation with AE is 1050 Loss: 19.2%
If AE is a flat increase:
AE costs for both is 18, so the max possible dissipation for the Condor is (roughly) the same.
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation with AE is 280 Loss: 39.1% (within reasonable parameters)
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation with AE is 1120 Loss: 13.8%
As you can see, the percentage loss is not the same. Thus, flat cannot be compared to percentage.
this leads us to what i described previously
the current system gives a bigger penalty to ships with a high base dissipation
a flat increase gives a bigger penalty to ships with less spare OP/ a lower total dissipation
I. Am. Not. Arguing. Against. This.
the current system will harm your total dissipation even if you have enough OP for maximum vents while having AE
a flat increase will not harm your total dissipation if you have enough OP for maximum vents, but it will force you to free up OP if you can't afford the higher price to begin with
You're just reenforcing my point with an unrelated point.
-
This patch made it almost like a new game and I'm pretty happy with it. However, there are SOME things that need looked at and still a lot to add. Here's my likes, dislikes, and suggestions. Ones in bold are the ones I'd REALLY like to see addressed.
Stuff that is awesome:
-THREE. FREAKING. STATION. All with different ships and weapons. Not only is this awesome for organization's sake, but it means that you can potentially become a Tri-Tachyon fleet and fight the Hegemony instead of being forced to work with 'em because they have the only station. Also, it means more convoys head in and potentially bring in more rare ships and equipment.
-Due to the increased stations, it's USUALLY possible to find whatever weapon you want, especially if it's supposed to be common. And certain weapons seem rarer, like the Salamanders, because they aren't on sale everywhere. Meanwhile, no longer are Tactical Lasers and Light Autocannons super-rare.
-More medium missile options. This was sorely needed.
-No more Pirate Scout fleets everywhere. Most Pirate fleets now have at least a couple of ships and put up a fight.
-Talons seem to actually survive now. Sometimes.
Changes I'm not liking and/or need tweaking:
-Not liking the Wasps being "Green". As someone said, it gives penalties to their default stats. I haven't checked, but I think this applies to Mining Drones too.
-Not thrilled with the Augmented Engines and Advanced Optics changes. AE is fine on SOME ships (Hounds are a good example), but on most that really need the speed, the 25% flux dissipation penalty is just insane. And most Energy Weapons turn-rate penalty with AO more than kills the ranged benefits.
-The "Speed penalty" when you lose a battle needs looked at. Particularly if you completely destroy the enemy fleet. I think it should only be half the speed reduction and/or duration of usual if the entire enemy fleet is completely captured and/or scrapped. It'd represent salvage time, yet not cripple you from further fights. If the enemy fleet escapes/retreats, however, the speed penalty is definitely needed.
-Ballistic Weapons still tend to always run out of ammo in long battles. I realize this is a weakness for them, but some way to address it would be nice. See my suggestions on it for a couple ideas.
-Swarm SRMs seem far too slow and are regularly outrun by the Fighters and Frigates they're supposed to kill.
-The Annihilator Rocket Launcher still seems like crap. I cannot use it well against anything. This could potentially be a cool weapon (Maybe allow it to fire a burst of unguided missiles that head relatively straight in each shot?)
-In most fights, Tri-Tachyon tend to DESTROY both Pirates and Hegemony in battles pretty consistently, even with smaller fleets. The "It costs more so it's balanced" argument doesn't seem to apply to them.
Suggestions:
-More Medium-sized missiles. The pods are nice, but we need some actual bigger-sized, medium missiles like the Pilium. Medium-sized Torpedos, anti-fighter missiles, and the like are all needed. Medium/large sized BOMBS could be interesting. Perhaps some missiles/torpedos that do AoE damage? Or heavily-armored ones that can get past weaker Point Defense systems.
-On that note...Swarm SRM POD for my medium slots, please. I would love to see a crapton of those things go flying out and decimate a frigate or fighter squadron.
-Make some (Albeit inconvenient) way for Ballistic ships to resupply ammo if they run completely out. Two ideas are a resupply ship that can dock with them in battle and refill their ammo up to 25% (Both ships would be very vulnerable during this docking and it would take time.) or having the ship able to "Retreat for resupply", be gone for several minutes (While still taking up FP!), and able to come back with 50%-75% of their ammo. For balance reasons, I think this should be limited to only ammo-using direct-fire weapons (So it would include the Anti-Matter cannon and the like) and not missiles.
-Brawler needs adjusting. The poor thing is slow to the point of near-uselessness most of the time in the early-game. If anything, make people not start the game in one with the terrible loadout of 2 Assault Chainguns and 2 Annihilator Rockets.
-I know this one may be hard, but...add in SOME way to lock Omni-Shields to one direction while you aim in a different direction. My strafing in most ships with Omni shields is crippled because I can't keep the cursor forward so I face the enemy while keeping my shields behind me so a bunch of Salamander MRMs don't EMP me. Meanwhile, the AI seems perfectly able to do so.
-Some weaker fighter types (Wasps, Talons, ect) need some AI tweaking so they don't fly straight at capital ships and get insta-killed by Flak Cannons.
-
Minor point here - destroyers are limited to a maximum of 20 vents.
So, no AE:
Condor: max 310 (base: 110)
Medusa: max 600 (base: 400)
AE costs the Condor ~28 dissipation (9% of max)
AE costs the Medusa 100 dissipation (17% of max)
Now, there's also the Flux Distributor to further complicate things, which gives 100 more max dissipation to each ship (at double the OP cost of vents, per flux/second).
-
The problem with the nerf to optics is that it's now just impractical. It being 'Too good' doesn't exactly sit well with me as you still have to take penalties to other areas in order to put it in. Same goes with augmented engines, it's already kinda laughable on capital ships and they get hurt the most by it. It costs too much, has too high of a penalty, and gives too little. That's the problem. Saying that hull mods that are good should be nerfed makes me wonder that outside of a gimmick what exactly are they intended to be used for if any of them that are good for more than specialized craft. Because if they're not intended for anything but specialized craft than why have them in the first place. It comes across as a sort of false choice, you COULD use advanced optics, but why would you want to? Currently it's almost as silly as if they put a turret rotation penalty or a range penalty on the integrated point defense AI.
The saves are in .xml files, you can edit them with notepad or any other text editor. :P
It doesn't work that way. Usually ends up erroring.
i think that's working as intended, he wanted the process of aquiring weapons be a more meaningfull process
Except it doesn't really end up being the case for me, all it did was add another 'chore' I have to deal with when playing. It's not like I can make a fleet out of all the random weapons I find, I'm still limited to the small selection of weapons that they can realistically use, and then find enough for the ship to fight which is rare. Speaking of being rare, this also creates an issue in that in order to find weapons for your recently acquired destroyer you must go into battle with stronger fleets to get parts for it despite your destroyer not being reasonably functional. Sure you could kit it out with the crappy small weapons you have lying around, but honestly with how hard ships are to gain and how quickly they can be lost it makes 'Pyrrhic Victories' more common and more frustrating.
I mean most of these wouldn't be a problem if they had a reasonable repair or reclaim rate, but they don't. In fact, even if they do get repaired you still lose weapons. How about that for progression? If your fleet was smaller but innately stronger/faster/etc. like each ship in your fleet is a protagonist versus an army of mooks than it wouldn't be much of an issue. But more often than not they're weaker than the other ships that respawn (always stocked with full weapons, crew, and what not) and your fleet doesn't. So while the computer can take endless losses without being phased you can hardly take any without being crippled. This update only compounded the 'Pyrrhic Victory' problem of before.
Now, there's also the Flux Distributor to further complicate things, which gives 100 more max dissipation to each ship (at double the OP cost of vents, per flux/second).
I got a question, why not just make it so that vents over a certain number double in price and change name? For example say you don't have enough to add 5 of these inefficient vents, but you have enough for 2 or 3. I don't see why that shouldn't be something to be allowed. Same with the capacitors.
-
Minor point here - destroyers are limited to a maximum of 20 vents.
I know, as I noted here:
Hull, not Variant. But regardless, fine then, I'll compare the Condor and Medusa, two extremes. This is assuming they can spend all their points into flux reduction. If you want to do it with restrictions, be my guest.
I would have done with the vent limit, but I unfortunately did most of the calculations before remembering and I didn't want to bother doing it again since the argument is over such a small matter. Plus, I figure Dreyven should do some calculation himself rather than me doing all the work.
Still shouldn't effect my point, though.
Edit: Just tested it, didn't effect my point.
-
As you can see, the percentage loss is not the same. Thus, flat cannot be compared to percentage.
We will never get the exact same numbers with different systems....
but, that's not what we want, do we?
to compare things they don't have to be equal
a comparison is often a tool to see what system fits the purpose better
Hull, not Variant. But regardless, fine then, I'll compare the Condor and Medusa, two extremes. This is assuming they can spend all their points into flux reduction. If you want to do it with restrictions, be my guest.
that's the reason i accused you of "math discussion"
completly ignoring gameplay elements and asuming otherwise
No AE:
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation without AE is 460
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation without AE is 1300
Condor max dissipation = 310
Medusa max dissipation = 600
If AE is percentage:
AE costs for both is 15 OP, what it is in-game.
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation with AE is 282.5 Loss: 38.6%
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation with AE is 1050 Loss: 19.2%
If AE is a flat increase:
AE costs for both is 18, so the max possible dissipation for the Condor is (roughly) the same.
Condor: Base 110, OP 35. Max possible dissipation with AE is 280 Loss: 39.1% (within reasonable parameters)
Medusa: Base 400, OP 90. Max possible dissipation with AE is 1120 Loss: 13.8%
AE percentage: (assuming you want no weapons on your condor and only 55 OP for weapons on the medusa)
condor = 282.5 Loss: 9.8%
Medusa = 500 Loss: 16.66%
AE percentage with variants:
Condor support variant: 17 OP
102.5 max flux dissipation
Medusa support Variant: 18 OP
330 max flux dissipation
Attack Variant: 24 OP
390 max flux dissipation
AE Flat: (17 OP, we can't go over that in our example... condor support only has 17)
condor support variant: 17 spare OP
resulting in 0 OP for vents
110 Flux dissipation max
Medusa Point defense variant: 18 spare OP
1 vent
410 flux dissipation max
Attack Variant: 24 spare OP
7 vents
470 max flux dissipation
now we got values where we can compare something... (although the total different ship types might be in the way [flight decks])
what do we see?
1. certain values of flat increase will achieve quite similiar results on certain variants
2. on others they won't, this is where a higher increase flat would be needed...
3. the more spare OP you got, the less will a flat increase affect you
now we can "compare" them to what fit's the purpose better...
if the purpose is to weaken high base flux dissipation ships
the % based system fits better
-
Let the ae nerf go. Arguing to much about it here.
-
Honestly, I'm taking a "wait and see" approach to the augmented engines nerf, at this point. It's rare for me to actually max out a ship's flux dissipation abilities, so - once character advancement is in - I figure I can probably just compensate with more vents and treat it as a (very expensive) mod, rather than an a (generally) unusably crippling mod.
The advanced optics nerf, though, still really hurts (except - as has been noted - on specific ships that didn't care about turrets anyway, for whom the nerf does nothing).
If you need more of a balance for advanced optics than its high ordnance point cost, may I suggest having it make beam weapons more fragile - easier to get knocked out by armor / hull damage and/or take longer to repair - and also slightly increase beam weapon flux generation (say, 10 to 25%)? That would actually be a meaningful penalty for *all* ship classes, but would still allow use of advanced optics with point defense beams.
-
I know, as I noted here:
Hull, not Variant. But regardless, fine then, I'll compare the Condor and Medusa, two extremes. This is assuming they can spend all their points into flux reduction. If you want to do it with restrictions, be my guest.
I would have done with the vent limit, but I unfortunately did most of the calculations before remembering and I didn't want to bother doing it again since the argument is over such a small matter. Plus, I figure Dreyven should do some calculation himself rather than me doing all the work.
Still shouldn't effect my point, though.
Edit: Just tested it, didn't effect my point.
Ahh yes, sorry - didn't see that. I thought part of your point was that the Condor was affected more than the Medusa (which it's not, but the percentages seemed to indicate otherwise), so that's why I chimed in.
I got a question, why not just make it so that vents over a certain number double in price and change name? For example say you don't have enough to add 5 of these inefficient vents, but you have enough for 2 or 3. I don't see why that shouldn't be something to be allowed. Same with the capacitors.
At some point, some hull mods will be locked away by character skills - so, you wouldn't even have access to these unless you had, say, a high enough Engineering.
-
Let the ae nerf go. Arguing to much about it here.
Very well. I didn't care much for it anyway. And frankly I don't think I was getting anywhere explaining my point to Dreyven. :-\ I guess I just suck at explaining what I mean or something.
-
Very well. I didn't care much for it anyway. And frankly I don't think I was getting anywhere explaining my point to Dreyven. :-\
I agree... we weren't really going anywhere with our discussion
let's sign a peace treaty XD
i want to thank the developers again, i'm enjoying myself a lot playing this new update
-
I agree... we weren't really going anywhere with our discussion
let's sign a peace treaty XD
Agreed.
*Sticks "kick me" sign on Dreyven's back*
-
I agree... we weren't really going anywhere with our discussion
let's sign a peace treaty XD
Agreed.
*Sticks "kick me" sign on Dreyven's back*
Win
-
I got a question, why not just make it so that vents over a certain number double in price and change name? For example say you don't have enough to add 5 of these inefficient vents, but you have enough for 2 or 3. I don't see why that shouldn't be something to be allowed. Same with the capacitors.
At some point, some hull mods will be locked away by character skills - so, you wouldn't even have access to these unless you had, say, a high enough Engineering.
Given that, it can still work that way once you get high enough engineering. EG it unlocks the 'double' cost sinks once you meet the requirements.
-
Given that, it can still work that way once you get high enough engineering. EG it unlocks the 'double' cost sinks once you meet the requirements.
Thought you might bring that up :) That was actually one of the first things we considered, but it seems cleaner to achieve largely the same thing working within existing mechanics instead of adding new ones, no?
-
In completely random note - The resistant flux circuits often provides *almost* equivalent flux dissipation compared to spending points directly in vents
Of particular note, the Hyperion gets 28 flux dissipation, for 2 OP.. The medusa gains 40 for 4 OP, and the Odyssey gets 100 for 10 OP, and the Paragon gets 125 for 10 OP. The Auora is 85 for 6 OP...
Anyway, yeah, on some ships its really useful, and on other ships useful if you find yourself getting hit by emp weapons
-
Given that, it can still work that way once you get high enough engineering. EG it unlocks the 'double' cost sinks once you meet the requirements.
Thought you might bring that up :) That was actually one of the first things we considered, but it seems cleaner to achieve largely the same thing working within existing mechanics instead of adding new ones, no?
Thing is that I never can really use them because either I have to waste points, or I just avoid the flux. Because say I have only 6 points left, and it needs 10. I could take out 4 vents or downgrade a weapon, but then it kind of defeat's it's purpose.
Also, if engineering is required, does that mean most ships won't start with hull modifications?
Also I found this in the advanced optics:
public class AdvancedOptics implements HullModEffect {
public static final float BEAM_RANGE_BONUS = 200f;
public static final float BEAM_DAMAGE_PENALTY = 25f;
public static final float BEAM_TURN_PENALTY = 50f;
Is that supposed to be there?
-
Remove that one ;D
-
I think the only problem im having is that wing dominance will beat EVERYTHING seriously get enough wings and you can take on the hegemony fleets I really only ever deploy the tempest and a carrier and that basically wins me every fight.. I think wings need a penalty in large numbers
-
Could a fix be to give larger ships better anti intercepter weapons? Or possibly cruisers and larger take less damage from small weapons?
-
think i found a bug not 100% sure but my flag ship was down to 6 hull hp left so i left the battle was flying the high tech friget with 5 elite crew and the auto calc finish the battle with my ship living thats np but i didn't lose any crew at all made me happy but i'm sure if i finished the battle myself i would have losed 4 to 5 of the crew for that ship (note all dmg done to the ship was in that battle was not hurt before going into it)
edit nvm u still lose them its just the reslut screen is not showing the loses
-
Could a fix be to give larger ships better anti intercepter weapons? Or possibly cruisers and larger take less damage from small weapons?
Point defense: try equipping some PD lasers or flak/dual flak cannons :)
-
Honestly, large ships are supoosed to rely on smaller ships for point defense - consider getting like a wolf of omen in a point defense setup.. Or just use some broadswords or wasps
-
You guys are missing the point, it's the AI that needs help against fighters squadron spam.
-
Problem is that the best point defenses require either small energy, or medium ballistic. Few frigates support enough of those to be effective. Currently only the wolf seems suitable. Light machine guns can work in a pinch, but they're terrible at protecting other ships from my experience.
-
OR right now the balance meter is highly in favor of the missile/fighter right now. PD weapons are in general right now trailing the missile/fighter tech of the game. it either takes longer than the weapon has to fire to blow up a missile/fighter or they can be over whelmed very easily with missile/fighter spam. if we had a few more area damage PD weapons for more mounting sizes...im looking at you small and large... and an energy based solution... i think we could balance them out a little more. though if one goes to far in that direction then you have missiles/fighters trailing PD tech. so while i believe there is more balancing to be done personally i also believe its a hard line to get right on the money. and may require some kind of ECM tech for fighters...
-
OR right now the balance meter is highly in favor of the missile/fighter right now. PD weapons are in general right now trailing the missile/fighter tech of the game. it either takes longer than the weapon has to fire to blow up a missile/fighter or they can be over whelmed very easily with missile/fighter spam. if we had a few more area damage PD weapons for more mounting sizes...im looking at you small and large... and an energy based solution... i think we could balance them out a little more. though if one goes to far in that direction then you have missiles/fighters trailing PD tech. so while i believe there is more balancing to be done personally i also believe its a hard line to get right on the money. and may require some kind of ECM tech for fighters...
Counter-Measure Flares, Anti-missile-missiles, a good low end ballistic PD and a good medium energy PD. Also the guardian PD is kind of worthless, fires too slow, takes too much OP, and turns at an abysmal rate.
-
I think the issues with fighters zerging the ai are largely dependent on the what the Ai's fleet comp is. I was steamrolling all pirate fleets with my 6 talon 5 broadsword 2 carrier group in seconds, but when I fought a tri-tach fleet with similar number of fighters and all those beam weapons the battle was much closer. I ended up losing nearly all my fighters, as did he, and the fight came down to our larger ships duking it out.
-
I think the issues with fighters zerging the ai are largely dependent on the what the Ai's fleet comp is. I was steamrolling all pirate fleets with my 6 talon 5 broadsword 2 carrier group in seconds, but when I fought a tri-tach fleet with similar number of fighters and all those beam weapons the battle was much closer. I ended up losing nearly all my fighters, as did he, and the fight came down to our larger ships duking it out.
I second this. AI could really use more flak wielding ships. Although I disagree with you on tri-tach fleet giving fighters much trouble. Once you gather bit more broadswords (those 6 talons are really worthless, performance to price ratio wise, broadswords easily out perform them), it's the same deal as any other fleet. The toughest to fight against as fighter spammer is probably onslaught based hegemony defense fleet due to the onslaughts carrying a lot of explosive and flaks. By tough I mean you might end up losing few pilots by the end. But it is not risky fight at all.
-
and turns at an abysmal rate.
Isn't it supposed to track nearly immediately?
-
I'm not sure where I fall in this discussion, but taken as a whole, point defense should -lose- to an equivalent resource expenditure of missiles and/or fighters. Why? Because otherwise it's a stalemate and if both sides take loads of missiles, fighters and PD, nothing ever gets hurt, and that makes it a boring game. Generally, if (for a roughly equal amount of ordnance points, fleet points, etc) you can wait out the missiles until they run out of ammo, PD is probably too good.
That's not saying that PD should do nothing, and if it's not doing -enough- right now then that's a problem; the lower end of energy PD certainly seems a bit meh, and I never even see anything with a Guardian so I'm not sure they can be usefully considered. In general, PD should be a way of extending the survivability of things when faced with missiles and fighters, rather than a way of countering them entirely - the way to counter them entirely is either interceptors to kill opposing fighters, or blowing up whatever's launching the missiles.
-
Enemy Ship Strafing
I currently have a big problem with the AI,
it doesn't strafe enough. It's too defensive, not in the "doesn't engage enough" way, i like to not loose ships.
But it doesn't strafe enough, resulting in Hardpoints not turned where they need to be.
The two biggest problems are the Hound and the Wolf, they both turn their Hardpoint away from the enemy too quick, resulting in them not shooting enough.
-
Isn't it supposed to track nearly immediately?
Yeah, I've never had problems with Guardian tracking. The main problem with it is its ridiculously slow firing rate, I think.
I don't think PD is supposed to stop multiple wings of bombers and torpedo bombers, along with tons of Piliums. If it does, either A) the PD is probably overpowered, or B) the ship's OP were stacked towards PD, and therefore the ship overall has relatively low offensive power against larger ships (ie, if you use all of an Onslaught's OP for flak cannons).
My nearly-stock Conquest flagship loadout is more than capable of handling most fighter wings and the bombs/torpedoes that slip past escorts, but obviously if I was zerged with Piranhas, something's going to slip through (which is what the omni shield is for).
-
thats the point of larger ships. to defend your carriers, most of the real fighting is done with fighters just because of how good they are.
-
Pft. I push with my capital ships.
-
if I was zerged with Piranhas, something's going to slip through
4 piranha wings cost more fleet points then a conquest class. if they don't have a good chance of doing some damage then something is wrong.
-
I feel like the guardian PD should be a collection of small (maybe with a medium?) burst lasers - 4-5 of them on independent turret points, regardless of if the weapon is on a hardpoint or not..
It would give it a somewhat unique role in that youre turning a hardpoint into turreted point defense..
In reality, this would probably end up being silly powerful in actually being a point defense item..
-
Problem with the guardian is most ships that have it also have advanced optics I realize, which makes it completely useless for everything.
-
I think Point Defense has a trio of main problems, really:
1) They attack so much crap that ISN'T a missile/fighter that they forget to do their damn job. I can't count how many times my Burst PD Lasers have fired at a Capital Ship I was strafing past instead of the missiles trailing behind me. And when they finally turn to face the missile, they're in cooldown and the missiles hit me.
Ideally, I'd like a way to make Point Defense weapons STRICTLY point-defense. Perhaps a "PD Only" toggle. Like the "Hold Fire", when it's on, Point Defense weapons will ONLY fire at Fighters and/or Missiles.
2) Another problem I have is with the Hold Fire in general. If I have Pulse Lasers that pump out the damage and PD Lasers that are keeping me alive, all on autofire and I have to shut off the flux-happy Pulse Lasers so I don't overload...my Point Defense is now offline too! A separate "Auto-Fire/Hold Fire" set would fix this. SHIFT+1 puts something on "Autofire 1" that you can stop by hitting X. ALT+1 would put that same group on "Autofire 1" that you could stop by hitting Z. Not only would this help with Point Defense, but it'd give more freedom in general of what weapons are firing when.
Might be nice to have a capital ship that can toggle Autofire separately for it's Anti-Shield and Anti-Armor weapons.
3) Energy PD weapons largely suck. I would take a Vulcan Cannon over a PD Laser or a Flak Cannon over a Burst Laser any day. First, the normal PD laser is so weak even with multiple lasers, it's hard-pressed to take out a single missile. And while the Burst PD lasers are good (Although the cooldown is a bit long), the issue in problem #1 kicks in: their long range makes them attack things that they shouldn't instead of fighter/missile threats.
This is compounded by the fact that they're all "Energy" and not "Fragmentation", and get no real advantage against fighters/missiles. Maybe change certain PD Energy weapons to have Fragmentation damage. The reasoning could be that they cause some sort of radiation, emit certain particles, or cause internal thermal damage. All that would be largely blocked by armor/shields, but will devastate unshielded targets and small ships.
Also energy has no real AoE attacks that can swat down groups of missiles/fighters like Flak Cannons can. Some sort of "Charge Launcher" or "Energy Mortar" that explodes on contact.
-
If point defense energy weapons were moved to frag damage, and the targeting was changed to HEAVILY favor actually doing point defense stuff, that would be huge.. Even if it meant you couldnt use point defense lasers on fleet ships at all, their usefulness in being PD is incredibly strong.
-
2) Another problem I have is with the Hold Fire in general. If I have Pulse Lasers that pump out the damage and PD Lasers that are keeping me alive, all on autofire and I have to shut off the flux-happy Pulse Lasers so I don't overload...my Point Defense is now offline too! A separate "Auto-Fire/Hold Fire" set would fix this. SHIFT+1 puts something on "Autofire 1" that you can stop by hitting X. ALT+1 would put that same group on "Autofire 1" that you could stop by hitting Z. Not only would this help with Point Defense, but it'd give more freedom in general of what weapons are firing when.
Why don't you just put all your PD in one weapons group and the main damage dealing weapons in another group separately? This way you can shut off damage dealers to save on flux generation while the PDs are still functional in their role.
-
2) Another problem I have is with the Hold Fire in general. If I have Pulse Lasers that pump out the damage and PD Lasers that are keeping me alive, all on autofire and I have to shut off the flux-happy Pulse Lasers so I don't overload...my Point Defense is now offline too! A separate "Auto-Fire/Hold Fire" set would fix this. SHIFT+1 puts something on "Autofire 1" that you can stop by hitting X. ALT+1 would put that same group on "Autofire 1" that you could stop by hitting Z. Not only would this help with Point Defense, but it'd give more freedom in general of what weapons are firing when.
Why don't you just put all your PD in one weapons group and the main damage dealing weapons in another group separately? This way you can shut off damage dealers to save on flux generation while the PDs are still functional in their role.
I do. It's usually main guns are 1, missiles 2, alternate guns that I let the AI aim are 3, and PD are 4.
But if I'm manually turning autofire off and on for each weapon group, there's no real point to the incredibly-convenient "Hold Fire" button, really. It becomes an emergency-use thing instead of a convenience thing.
-
I'm a bit fuzzy on this, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that the hold fire button is a bit redundant due to the fact that toggling autofire, as well as the ability to remap the auto-fire toggles to more convienient places on the keyboard right?
I recall Alex or Ivaylo said something about customizeable weapon groups later on, although I don't know what this means, but I think it might address this problem.
-
I agree that PD is largely ineffective - but whilst increasing its lethality would be one solution, that puts the player at a bit of a disadvantage, in that fighters are a significant investment, and losing a squadron of anything less disposable than Talons is certainly well within "reload and try battle again" territory. Reducing their chance to survive a battle any further would probably be quite frustrating, and a real reason to simply use fighters less. Likewise, I'm not sure I'd want to see PD gain a big advantage versus missiles as-is. Certainly, it should be very difficult to shoot down Harpoons or Salamanders, given the low ammo counts of each; and Pilums are already fairly easy to destroy.
I think a better option would be to give fighters significantly weaker weapons, and perhaps also make them cheaper. As things stand, a single squadron of broadswords is a greater threat to a high-tech ship reliant on shields than an average destroyer or a Venture-class cruiser - and they actually don't cost that much less than the former. Neither of these things makes any sense at all. The strength of fighters should be in their numbers, speed and maneuverability; a single squadron of all but the most expensive fighters shouldn't be a credible threat or a significant contribution to a fleet. Flanking is already a pretty huge advantage against most larger ships, as the newly-buffed Hound proves. Decreasing the damage output of fighters reduces their overall effectiveness against the AI, which is what we really want, without incurring the same costs to the player that an increase in PD effectiveness would result in.
-
As things stand, a single squadron of broadswords is a greater threat to a high-tech ship reliant on shields than an average destroyer or a Venture-class cruiser - and they actually don't cost that much less than the former. Neither of these things makes any sense at all. The strength of fighters should be in their numbers, speed and maneuverability; a single squadron of all but the most expensive fighters shouldn't be a credible threat or a significant contribution to a fleet.
this...
-
It's kind of interesting having a game where the fighters are a credible threat than just flies to be swatted.
-
It's kind of interesting having a game where the fighters are a credible threat than just flies to be swatted.
Che, most games make fighters wayyyy too useful in space.
-
It's kind of interesting having a game where the fighters are a credible threat than just flies to be swatted.
Che, most games make fighters wayyyy too useful in space.
Only when spammed from my experience.
-
Most games make spamming anything a valid proposition. Maneuver and unit value rarely matter.
In fact, the only game where fighters are really insignificant that I can think about is...... Sword of the Stars.
-
Those weren't even fighters. Those were drones.
-
I don't make a distinction between manned or unmanned fighters. They serve the same tactical function.
-
drones in SOTS prime and SOTS II are like flies. pretty much worthless. now in SOTS II they removed the destroyer class ship and made them battleriders only which i guess you could now consider there "fighters" since they have to use a "carrier" to get to any combat that is not at one of your own planets.
ooh.. i wonder if MOO3 has fighters... if it did i bet they were utter [censored]. lol i think i played that game for all of 10 minutes before i just gave up from disappointment.one of my friends on the other hand refused to give up on that game till he saw the "finding all the X's" finish.. which took him a LONG time.. and i got to laugh at all the crap in the game while he did it.
-
I agree that PD is largely ineffective - but whilst increasing its lethality would be one solution, that puts the player at a bit of a disadvantage, in that fighters are a significant investment, and losing a squadron of anything less disposable than Talons is certainly well within "reload and try battle again" territory.
Decreasing the damage output of fighters reduces their overall effectiveness against the AI, which is what we really want, without incurring the same costs to the player that an increase in PD effectiveness would result in.
To stop fighters from being lost after a battle, have the squad be "Disabled" or "Neutralized" rather than "Destroyed" in battle. After the battle, if the winning side has a carrier present, then it's "Disabled" fighters are able to be repaired (Though they'd be at 5% or so status, thus making them unusable for quite a while and making "Losing" all of your fighter squadrons in a battle still very serious.
It'd be both an incentive to have carriers (And keep them alive! If there are no surviving Carriers after the battle, the "Disabled" fighters are goners!), a reason to be more bold with your fighters instead of keeping them in reserve for fear of losing them permanently due to random projectiles wiping them out, and give a bonus to winning the battle.
Decreasing the damage output of non-strike/assault fighters against larger ships, I'd agree with, but not against everything or you'll have fighters that are pathetic at killing each other, shooting down missiles, or doing anything against Frigates. There are two main things I've noticed that tend to make their damage pretty obscene:
-With no shields, they literally have no flux issues and can fire at their maximum potential rate at all times. This leads to basically nonstop weapons fire that would leave any Frigate that tried it dangerously close to overload.
-Certain fighters (Broadswords and Thunders are the worst offenders here!) have a combined squadron HP and armor above most frigates, each pack almost as much firepower as a Frigate, and are constantly repairable, replaceable, and reloadable.
The Thunder is definitely the worst here, being able to spam 3 Ion Cannons, 3 Swarm SRMs, and 3 Harpoons all at once. But a Broadsword wing is a close second, bring 6 (!) Light Machine Guns and 3 Swarm SRMs at once to the fight. It's a bit much, given the high durability and decent speed of the fighters.
If damage is reduced for FIGHTERS, they need to keep it the same for BOMBERS and other strike-craft. Bombers and Torpedo Bombers NEED to be dangerous to capital ships.
-
mmm.. Fighters kinda useful in Egosoft's X2/3 from what I hear
-
mmm.. Fighters kinda useful in Egosoft's X2/3 from what I hear
You mad bro..... They are awesome in that game ;D
-
Problem with making fighters weaker is that they'll either need to make squads larger, or make them MUCH more replaceable or recoverable. I don't want to lose a ton of crewmen just to have a few fighter wings in every battle. It'd be like gratuitous space battles all over again.
-
A simple solution to making fighters less ridiculous compared to capital ships without making them sinks for disposable crew is to just make them a lot more timid.
Make them easier to dissuade with point defense, write in a system to maybe make them more confident when flying en masse, but much much easier to turn away otherwise. That way, they don't die as much, AND capital ships can still plow right through them and take points.
It makes sense too. It takes a gutsy pilot to fly right into walls of flak and point defense lasers.
-
A simple solution to making fighters less ridiculous compared to capital ships without making them sinks for disposable crew is to just make them a lot more timid.
Make them easier to dissuade with point defense, write in a system to maybe make them more confident when flying en masse, but much much easier to turn away otherwise. That way, they don't die as much, AND capital ships can still plow right through them and take points.
It makes sense too. It takes a gutsy pilot to fly right into walls of flak and point defense lasers.
That would make quite a lot of sense instead of the current kamikaze system inplace now :D
-
Yeah, I've never seen a wing of Piranhas actually break off a bombing run due to heavy fire-- and they should.
-
That would make quite a lot of sense instead of the current kamikaze system inplace now :D
Rather them fly through the ship's shields then drop the payload?
-
That would make quite a lot of sense instead of the current kamikaze system inplace now :D
Rather them fly through the ship's shields then drop the payload?
Yes, if the ships a well-armed onslaught. Daggers are the weakest bombers in the game, and the moat expensivest. Don't want them to bullcharge a onslaught.
-
what you guys are forgetting is that in the future fighters will probably be nerfed by hanger size.
-
I've been adhering strictly to hangar size all this time. No, I didn't forget, and yes, fighters are still overpowered.
-
A simple solution to making fighters less ridiculous compared to capital ships without making them sinks for disposable crew is to just make them a lot more timid.
Make them easier to dissuade with point defense, write in a system to maybe make them more confident when flying en masse, but much much easier to turn away otherwise. That way, they don't die as much, AND capital ships can still plow right through them and take points.
It makes sense too. It takes a gutsy pilot to fly right into walls of flak and point defense lasers.
It would depend, really. I could see them being dissuaded by Flak, but not much else. Especially not the terrible Energy PD weapons.
And the problem here is that if fighters/bombers are hesitant to attack, then you basically have them being useless in a lot of situations. I like how fighters behave currently. I just think certain fighters (Broadswords and Thunders, especially) need to be looked at for the sake of balance.
Broadswords should NOT be able to overload capital ship shields so fast.
I've been adhering strictly to hangar size all this time. No, I didn't forget, and yes, fighters are still overpowered.
They're pretty ridiculous. With a wing or two of Broadswords, I can easily overload the shields of almost any capital ship in seconds. Which makes me think that one of the big issues right now is that the fighters, on average, are as or more durable than the bombers. And often-times, packing similar firepower.
Bombers should be able to take a few hits, but fighters should be pretty smashable by Point Defense if they're dumb or brave enough to do strafing runs.
-
Hesitant to attack CAPITAL ships without support. I think that's very reasonable. And they'd still be useful as point cappers, and frigate interdiction, even without the bulk to attack Capital Ships. Also bombers ought to be a little braver than interceptors. The basic point is that you're a lot more tactically flexible for a lot fewer crew and credits with fighters than with a capital ship. That shouldn't be. Capital ships ought to fill an actual tactical niche, rather than being vanity boats.
-
Why change the fighter AI? Anything other than direct engagement behavior will be rage inducing since player already has so little control over the units. For example, what exactly would quality for "support"? It's ambiguous, something that is intuitive to a person is anything but when an AI carries it out. Besides, the culprit is the extremely high kinetic DPS on the MG that broadswords uses. MGs can use a slight nerf (seriously, small slot weapon with 300 DPS that can be sustained at virtually zero flux cost?) and/or give broadsword one MG and 2 swarmer missiles.
Oh and splash damage PDS for energy based weaponry too. AI can seriously use better PDS ships for its arsenal.
-
Interceptors shouldn't be able to strafe a capital ship into overload. Period.
If you're complaining about how little control you have over the minutia of your ships' attack patterns, you are playing the wrong game, in my opinion. But I digress, I am simply offering a way to make capital ships more useful in comparison to fighters without greatly increasing fighter pilot attrition or overbuffing capital ships.
-
Interceptors shouldn't be able to strafe a capital ship into overload. Period.
If you're complaining about how little control you have over the minutia of your ships' attack patterns, you are playing the wrong game, in my opinion. But I digress, I am simply offering a way to make capital ships more useful in comparison to fighters without greatly increasing fighter pilot attrition or overbuffing capital ships.
Nobody is arguing about that.
If you had to deal with the amount of friendly fire I get from my own frigates, you would change your mind on further complicating the AI ;) I'm running zero fighter/bomber fleet with 6 frigates, 4 destroyers and a capital ship and it's a damn mass. AI cannot manage path/target find with any semblance of sanity. I'm getting tempests ramming up my ass with medusas that loves to head straight into middle of 4 enemy ships from the get go.
-
Interceptors shouldn't be able to strafe a capital ship into overload. Period.
That's really more of an issue with the weapons and damage fighters do than the AI itself. The fighters EACH use Frigate-sized weaponry that does full damage. So a wing of Broadswords is basically 3 mini-frigates strafing you with anti-shield weaponry.
Give all interceptors and heavy fighters a sizeable damage penalty against anything larger than Destroyers, maybe.
-
I really love how into this game we all are. I hope I can make a game this good someday. :D Okay carry on...
-
Interceptors shouldn't be able to strafe a capital ship into overload. Period.
That's really more of an issue with the weapons and damage fighters do than the AI itself. The fighters EACH use Frigate-sized weaponry that does full damage. So a wing of Broadswords is basically 3 mini-frigates strafing you with anti-shield weaponry.
Give all interceptors and heavy fighters a sizeable damage penalty against anything larger than Destroyers, maybe.
Why would they use anything less? Given the amount of punishment fighters can take, it makes sense that they'd use warship size weapons.
I get what you mean though, but in my opinion, juggling balance with ship class bonuses to damage is a silly solution to the issue of fighters. A gun is a gun is a gun. If it does less damage, it ought to be called something else. And in my opinion, an AI fix is both more realistic, and makes fighter pilots a little bit more longer lived, while also giving capital ships a strong, tactical role.
-
I'd propose nerfing certain fighters and making mid-mission fighter repair take much longer, like 2-3x longer. That ought to fix most of the issues.
-
I just feel that overall the difference between small weapons and large weapons (in addition to large ship shield and hull numbers) isnt large enough
Small pulse laser: 100 deeps
medium pulse laser: 200 deeps
heavy pulse laser 600 deeps
I feel like the numbers on medium and heavy could be a lot higher (similarly with their flux/dissipation numbers, honestly)
-
Why would they use anything less? Given the amount of punishment fighters can take, it makes sense that they'd use warship size weapons.
They should have a penalty for doing so, then--make a fighter that can mount a warship-grade MG as slow and unmanoeuvrable as Piranhas and people would soon stop complaining about how OP they are! Conversely, any fighter that is fast and nimble must have their own fighter-size weaponry that does maybe half the damage of a warship one, or else have severe flux dissipation issues. Flux makes sense here, actually--it's already the method used to balance larger ships, so it ought to be the same for fighters! If your Broadsword wing could only fire for a couple of seconds before having to run away to cool down they'd be much better balanced.
-
They should have a penalty for doing so, then--make a fighter that can mount a warship-grade MG as slow and unmanoeuvrable as Piranhas and people would soon stop complaining about how OP they are!
That doesn't make any sense. Most fighters can tank at least one deck gun round, so even interceptors, which are intended to fight other fighters, would mount weapons at least within spitting distance of frigate weaponry. Otherwise what's the point? You just get Battlestar Galactica-- the fighters are just there to fight each other and are basically pointless.
Conversely, any fighter that is fast and nimble must have their own fighter-size weaponry that does maybe half the damage of a warship one, or else have severe flux dissipation issues. Flux makes sense here, actually--it's already the method used to balance larger ships, so it ought to be the same for fighters! If your Broadsword wing could only fire for a couple of seconds before having to run away to cool down they'd be much better balanced.
Doesn't that result in the same thing that I was suggesting? More timid fighters?
-
Well, fighters are for taking down bombers and enemy fighters trying to take down your bombers. Bombers are for taking down big ships. So it would make sense that fighters can't do much against anything bigger than a frigate. Bombers mount the weapons that can take down big stuff, but those big weapons make the bomber less manoeuvrable and thus they require fighter support to keep enemy fighters away from them.
-
They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.
-
Well, fighters are for taking down bombers and enemy fighters trying to take down your bombers. Bombers are for taking down big ships. So it would make sense that fighters can't do much against anything bigger than a frigate. Bombers mount the weapons that can take down big stuff, but those big weapons make the bomber less manoeuvrable and thus they require fighter support to keep enemy fighters away from them.
This is what it should be, really. Because with the way things are, I'd rather fight 2 wings of Pirhanas at once than a single wing of Broadswords.
Fighters and Interceptors should be of minimal threat to anything larger than a Frigate.
-
They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.
You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?
-
They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.
You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?
These two assertions are not mutually exclusive.
As for the fighters overloading shields of large ships issue: I think that has to do with many of them using kinetic weapons, many of which are designed for two purposes. As secondary point defence weapons and - which is the relevant thing here - shield overloaders. Whether the devs assigned those weapons (like machine guns) with this intention in mind or not I wouldn't care to speculate, but that's certainly the emergent state of affairs.
-
They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.
You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'll repeat myself. There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.
-
They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.
You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'll repeat myself. There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.
His point is that a couple wings of relatively inexpensive FIGHTERS (Not anti-capital ship bombers, torpedo bombers, or even Assault Fighters!) are capable of wiping out a large ships easily.
Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.
And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.
-
There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.
Precisely! Try a lasher with 5 dual MG. You can overload lock pretty much anything.
Problem is how powerful MGs are for small ballistic weapon partly due to having high dps and partly because of the inability for the AI to handle kinetic damage.
Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.
And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.
And this too. Another benefit of massing up fighters is that they have no hull collision, which means you can mass up any number of them at a given space. Try to use 6 frigates and watch them do jack squat other than playing bumper car with each other.
-
Yeah that last point is very very true.
I don't know quite how I feel about fighters. It does feel wrong for them to carry frigate sized weapons.
But they also aren't common in such huge numbers, and they are very easy to deal with given proper frag weapons.
I guess the real problem is that the ai sucks at countering them. Maybe that's something that will be addressed better by economy?
-
what i don't understand is the random satellites you have to capture in the game. That running around is what makes fighters so overpowered.
it doesn't even make sense, why are there random satellites all over space? i assume its to make the AI coding easier but you could at least have the ai not spread out his forces in an attempt to capture everything at once.
-
His point is that a couple wings of relatively inexpensive FIGHTERS (Not anti-capital ship bombers, torpedo bombers, or even Assault Fighters!) are capable of wiping out a large ships easily.
Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.
And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.
Yeah, I got that. And I agree that fighters are overpowered and offer a ridiculous cost-effect ratio compared to capital ships. I just don't agree that reducing weapon damage based on ship class is a good solution, or making them carry some even smaller class of weapon. The latter just makes no sense. As I said already, fighters are strong enough to tank quite a bit of damage, strong enough to survive a blast from a deck gun oftentimes. It doesn't make sense that they'd carry impotent weapons; they wouldn't be able to fight even each other.
-
I really think switching all "Light Machine Guns" on fightercraft to "Vulcan Cannons" would really make a huge impact. Only leave the MGs on the Warthog Assault Fighter, because assaulting is what it's SUPPOSED to do.
Honestly, the Broadsword's MGs being so effective is what makes a lot of fighters like the Gladiator and Warthog seem useless.
-
I'm wary of fiddling with the whole fighter mechanics atm. The finished game can easily have AI fleets containing large number of interceptors which will largely neglect the fighter domination players has over 0.51a's AI fleet composition.
It's Alpha; don't get so worked up about balance.
-
Yeah, I got that. And I agree that fighters are overpowered and offer a ridiculous cost-effect ratio compared to capital ships. I just don't agree that reducing weapon damage based on ship class is a good solution, or making them carry some even smaller class of weapon. The latter just makes no sense. As I said already, fighters are strong enough to tank quite a bit of damage, strong enough to survive a blast from a deck gun oftentimes. It doesn't make sense that they'd carry impotent weapons; they wouldn't be able to fight even each other.
One thing that I've noticed, it's basically impossible to maintain high skill levels for your fighter crews. They take casualties ridiculously easily, and in order to benefit from crew skill, every single crewman in the wing seems to need to have that experience level.
Maybe something that could be done to offset the effects of fighter-based power is to make them more expensive in their upkeep costs. More fuel, more supplies, harder to keep crewed, and rely on that as a good counterbalance to their combat power.
Basically, since the problem is their cost-effectiveness ratio, let's hit the lever on one of the 'cost' functions. Thoughts?
(Also; whassup, Isc!)
-
That hasn't been my experience, I run all my fighter crews as veterans, but I do agree that it is a difficult thing to do. Perhaps a bit easier now that you can buy veterans from the the other two stations a little more.
Anyway, once you start running any fighting ship with a decent crew, I've found that I get a dozen regular crew popping to veterans per battle. If I absorb a Broadsword death here and there, ehhhh, no biggie, I come out on top. Losing elites is TRAGIC though. I'd never put them in a cockpit.
-
Losing elites is TRAGIC though. I'd never put them in a cockpit.
I will give you an amen for that.
EDIT: Actually I have put them in talons before. :/ But only for escort duty on the flagship where I can protect them properly.
-
Yeah, usually I keep my Elites in the larger ships and run Veteran through all my fighters. Elite Thunders are pretty impressive though :P
-
Elite talons actually survive. :) Elite any fighters is impressive honestly.
-
Elite talons actually survive. :) Elite any fighters is impressive honestly.
They really do, but unfortunately that sometimes still means 1-2 Elites lost per battle even when all the fighter wings make it out intact :-\
-
Anyway, once you start running any fighting ship with a decent crew, I've found that I get a dozen regular crew popping to veterans per battle. If I absorb a Broadsword death here and there, ehhhh, no biggie, I come out on top. Losing elites is TRAGIC though. I'd never put them in a cockpit.
I suppose it doesn't help that I don't fly anything heavier than a destroyer. I probably take worse casualties because of it. But the maneuverability and firepower is just too good to pass up. Anything heavier is just too sluggish for me.
-
I suppose it doesn't help that I don't fly anything heavier than a destroyer. I probably take worse casualties because of it. But the maneuverability and firepower is just too good to pass up. Anything heavier is just too sluggish for me.
Leave the bigger ships under AI control while you zxip around harassing stuff in your destroyer, then...that's usually what I end up doing. (Tried actually flying a Dominator once--after one battle I went back to my trusty Hammerhead! About the only cruiser that's worth personally flying is the Aurora, and as far as capital ships go, the only one I'd ever raise my flag in is an Astral, and only then if I was intending to run a fleet consisting almost entirely of fighter wings).
-
Conquest is a good capital ship to pilot. First, because AI can't use the broadsides. Two, it's actually pretty decent in speed department. With augmented engine and improved thrusters, it handles close to slower destroyers/fast cruisers.
-
Give me a wolf and i will pwn, send me the fighters and i will mourn
The losses are great with all the point defense hate
Death becomes the norm.
;D
-
Honestly, I went ahead and modded things to switch the Broadsword's Light Machine Guns to Vulcans and I gotta say, it's been a pretty good change.
The firing speed of the Vulcans means that they're still a threat to shields, but they aren't ridiculous against them like the MGs. And the shorter range, though it might not seem like a lot, means they have to get closer to attack, making them more vulnerable to PD defenses.
Plus the Vulcans make them better against fighters and missiles. And lastly, the Vulcans seem to run out of ammo faster, making Carriers more important to have around.
Alex should really look at this and consider this change for the next patch.
-
About fighter balance: I've been considering it for a while. Just want to hold off on making any major changes until the logistics of fielding fighters (and ships) are better represented. And until the AI is better about handling incoming kinetic damage, which is a large part of the reason why the Broadswords are so effective right now.
I've actually thought about the Vulcan change, btw - but I think it's too much when you consider where the Broadsword ends up relative to other fighters (pretty much bottom tier - can't even scratch the paint on a Gladius wing).
-
Personally, a good counter to fighters would be different ways for missile/energy slots to handle them. An area-of-effect fragmentation missile or area-EMP missile would be great against fighters. Similarly, some kind of super-short-range arcing chain-lightning cannon for small energy slots would be a nice counter to groups of fighters close in to or even inside your hull.
-
I've got two words: ground combat :D
-
I've actually thought about the Vulcan change, btw - but I think it's too much when you consider where the Broadsword ends up relative to other fighters (pretty much bottom tier - can't even scratch the paint on a Gladius wing).
This sounds kinda wrong, since doesn't the Vulcan do fragmentation damage, which is supposed to be optimal against fighters?
(Wrong as in "that's just wrong, man!")
-
Don't Gladius's have some pretty impressive armor?
-
This sounds kinda wrong, since doesn't the Vulcan do fragmentation damage, which is supposed to be optimal against fighters?
(Wrong as in "that's just wrong, man!")
Well, frag is mostly "horrible vs anything with armor or shields", not "good vs fighters". It's best vs missiles, really, since those never have any armor, just hitpoints. The heavy fighters in particular have some decent armor, never mind the Xyphos that has shields.
The Vulcan has a very high dps, sure, but a lot of the shots miss - so unlike the flak, it's hard to get anywhere near the stated dps out of it vs fighters. It's much better against missiles.
I've been thinking of making frag damage be based on the target's size, instead of whether it hits armor or shields... undecided on that, though.
-
I've actually thought about the Vulcan change, btw - but I think it's too much when you consider where the Broadsword ends up relative to other fighters (pretty much bottom tier - can't even scratch the paint on a Gladius wing).
maybe the broadsword should have a Light Dual MG instead of 2 light MG's... would need some tests though
I've been thinking of making frag damage be based on the target's size, instead of whether it hits armor or shields... undecided on that, though.
i would actually really like that...
-
Hm. I might just change the modifiers - make fragmentation damage do like 75% effect vs. armor or shields, and re-balance weapon damage values around that. For example, flak cannons, right now, are just murder if your armor is gone, let alone thumpers. And it'd make it much more viable to give fighters vulcan cannons instead of machine guns.
-
This sounds kinda wrong, since doesn't the Vulcan do fragmentation damage, which is supposed to be optimal against fighters?
(Wrong as in "that's just wrong, man!")
Well, frag is mostly "horrible vs anything with armor or shields", not "good vs fighters". It's best vs missiles, really, since those never have any armor, just hitpoints. The heavy fighters in particular have some decent armor, never mind the Xyphos that has shields.
The Vulcan has a very high dps, sure, but a lot of the shots miss - so unlike the flak, it's hard to get anywhere near the stated dps out of it vs fighters. It's much better against missiles.
I've been thinking of making frag damage be based on the target's size, instead of whether it hits armor or shields... undecided on that, though.
I thought it WAS based on the size, in addition to armor/shields. If it's not, making that change would be a good idea, IMO.
Honestly, the Broadsword doesn't do all that bad against other fighters with the dual Vulcans, from what I've seen. The only difficulties it really has with them are against, as you said, Gladius' and Warthogs. Ironically, it turns the "Broadsword vs Xyphos" matchup on it's head, as without the Light MGs, the Broadsword doesn't overload the Xyphos' shields in 0.2 seconds and the Xyphos can actually use it's Ions to disable the Broadsword. Which, really, is what SHOULD be happening. The Xyphos is a top-tier fighter and the Broadsword is an older one.
-
But seriously, will there be some kind of ground battles?
-
But seriously, will there be some kind of ground battles?
That would certainly give a reason to carry around large assault transports. I mean, you'd need marines, tons of supplies for said marines, gunships for air support under cloud cover, tanks and armored vehicles.... then you could do all sorts of cool stuff like think about insertion options: by drop pod, drop ship, or just straight up landing a ship....
Goddamn that would be cool.
-
But seriously, will there be some kind of ground battles?
That would certainly give a reason to carry around large assault transports. I mean, you'd need marines, tons of supplies for said marines, gunships for air support under cloud cover, tanks and armored vehicles.... then you could do all sorts of cool stuff like think about insertion options: by drop pod, drop ship, or just straight up landing a ship....
Goddamn that would be cool.
Let's just hope alex thinks so too :D
-
I wouldn't even really care if the execution took place really simplistically. Selected units, select mode of insertion, select rules of engagement, initiate operation. Operation takes days to weeks depending on resistance, a fleet parked overhead gives its ground forces a substantial bonus. Simple. Don't need to add RTS or turn based strategy elements or anything like that.
Ok, maybe select a marine commander, that would be super cool.
-
And add orbital bombardment too :), if you totally fail with the incursion you can atleast make sure they wont be successfull either ;)
-
Supporting orbital bombardments would be factored into an overhead fleet's bonus to ground forces. Orbital bombardment without any ground forces at all would be similar to taking stations, I imagine. We're gonna have that, right?
-
But there should be atleast one major ground battle the player can play, or?
-
Huh? I don't follow. I thought we were talking about implementing ground battles. Or rather, our pipe dreams about implementing ground battles.
-
What I mean is you go ahead on a campaign to take a planet and so it extended to some days in which your army takes a large percentage of the surface, without you commanding them. Then your number 2 asks you if you want to command a major battle on the surface. That's how I thought, atleast.
-
I figured it'd all be automated. 'You', the fleet commander, can command the ground assault to varying degrees of competence depending on how you stat your character, or you can just delegate allowing your fleet of fly off somewhere else. So I guess we're in agreement.
As long as we agree that at no point does the player start making very specific decisions on how the battle is being fought. Hell, given the numbers of marines you can currently carry in your fleet, I'm uncomfortable with ground battles to take anything larger than a city.
-
Yes, that long we agree. I don't know of you agree to this point but I was thinking that the last battle in which you, say, take the capital of the planet, your second in command asks if you want to command the forces, for the glory and honor :)
-
Hello, fellow pilots! Following the last thought of ground battles I got an idea of an escaping government. I mean the ground army of the besieged planet is defeated and the remains of generalship take the emergency fleet and try to get the hell outta here, this is when your fleet catches it and the ordinary space battle commences. Needless to say, you take personal control of the flagship. The rest is pretty obvious ;)
-
Hello, fellow pilots! Following the last thought of ground battles I got an idea of an escaping government. I mean the ground army of the besieged planet is defeated and the remains of generalship take the emergency fleet and try to get the hell outta here, this is when your fleet catches it and the ordinary space battle commences. Needless to say, you take personal control of the flagship. The rest is pretty obvious ;)
Great idea! But how would one escape orbital bombardment.... :), and more on to the point, how would one take control of the ground battles and what units would there be?
-
Great idea! But how would one escape orbital bombardment.... :), and more on to the point, how would one take control of the ground battles and what units would there be?
[/quote]
I think the ground battles aren't the focus of the game and devs have still a lot of things to do besides that aspect. Some kind of text-based menu with options like assault/siege up the capital/sabotage the food production, which will effect the chances of capturing the planet. And may be 3 or 4 types of troops, for instance, tanks/artillery/infantry/aircrafts.Basically, these are the modifiers of your chances to win. Game would compare your and enemy's armies and tell you the result. Of couse, such things as orbital bombardments would have their own effect on the situation. It's very close to what we have now with capturing the ships, but a bit deeper.
-
While I personally don't care much about the idea of ground combat, if there is going to be a mechanic that involves the invasion of planets, I'd suggest doing something extremely similar to the way Galactic Civilizations 2 handled it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT1Ex_vrHnM
Essentially, in order to invade a planet, you need transports that carry troops. On the pre-invasion screen, you are able to choose your invasion tactics. They cost different amounts of money, and either bolster your side's chances of winning, subtract for the enemy's chances of winning, or, in the unique case of information warfare, brings a few enemy troops over to your side.
Once you commit to the invasion after choosing your tactic, the land battle could either be instantaneous, or show some sort of quick little graphic sequence like in GalCiv 2 (Just hopefully not as annoying and stupid). Victory depends on your amount of troops, as well as their strength (soldiering) and technology, which could probably be adapted to something else for Starfarer's purposes, like supply, or morale or something.
All in all, I think it would be the best way to handle planetary invasions. It's short, sweet, and simple.
-
Psiyon +1. Kinda my suggestion wrapped up more precisely. Plus space battle at the end as i mentioned above. I mean no one certainly needs an FPS with 1000+ troops to capture a street on a random planet ::)
What would be also cool when boarding a ship leave some of its crew alive to pilot it for you. It's very sad when you take over a paragon and massacre every single living creature on it instead of making them obey your command. And, what is a more practical view on things, it would be cheaper for you to hire less crew to use the ship. Alex, we want to destroy soulless mechanisms, not poor souls inside! Am I right, fellas?
-
Personally I think planet invasions are out of the scope of this game. After conquering a planet, what do you do with it? Play simcity like galciv?
No thanks.
Smashing the planets defence fleet into a pulp? Yes, I'd love to. But anything after that? My planet-planning-staff can deal with the micro management...
-
Besides, why put land forces on the group if you can shoot everything from orbit?
-
Besides, why put land forces on the group if you can shoot everything from orbit?
Hmmm. Maybe you would shoot that city or high value mineral depot from orbit, but I'm greedy enough not to do such, especially when pirates run from you :D
-
Nah :P, a barrel aiming at a person from the sky is just as effective as a barrel aiming at the person several feet away if they both have a good probability of hitting. Coercing them to work for you wouldn't be that hard if you can nuke several kilometres at will.
-
Nah :P, a barrel aiming at a person from the sky is just as effective as a barrel aiming at the person several feet away if they both have a good probability of hitting. Coercing them to work for you wouldn't be that hard if you can nuke several kilometres at will.
Hmm. Good point there. Provided of course they don't have FREAKING INSTANT KILL NUKES then its all fine. Though you can say goodbye to the depot. And the planet.
-
Small tactical nukes do much less damage to the ground than the ones containing several megatonnes :P. You could also opt for rods of god too. All it would constitute is probably just dumping your on-ship garbage in the general direction of the offending person.
-
Besides, why put land forces on the group if you can shoot everything from orbit?
Collateral damage. Civilian casualties. Valuable assets.
-
Laser beamz :P. Pinpoint accuracy.
-
The heat inefficiency of laser weapons is preposterous, as are the problems with getting the beam not to bloom in the atmosphere. For a ship in negligible medium, like a space ship, that's not only dangerous but highly inefficient. Moreover, laser beams are much less effective at engaging hardened underground targets-- for obvious reasons.
-
I think we're losing track of the original argument here. People who are willing to endure living in a bunker for an extended period of time while the rest of their infrastructure burns to the ground probably won't do anything for you even if you sent people down to coerce them and burn down their houses in person. Besides, all you really need to do is to burn down one installation as an example.
-
Who says that time is on your side? Who says they aren't shooting back from ground batteries? Time and attrition are against the spaceborne fleet, not against the terrestrial defenders. Defenders can fire up with weapons powered by reactors the size of entire ships. They can manufacture missile reloads, sling up slugs with mass drivers. They could be defended by shields with outrageous flux dissipation. Why this assumption that if you vaporize one installation the others will somehow fall in line?
-
Who says that time is on your side? Who says they aren't shooting back from ground batteries? Time and attrition are against the spaceborne fleet, not against the terrestrial defenders. Defenders can fire up with weapons powered by reactors the size of entire ships. They can manufacture missile reloads, sling up slugs with mass drivers. They could be defended by shields with outrageous flux dissipation. Why this assumption that if you vaporize one installation the others will somehow fall in line?
Who says it isn't? It can be a consideration but it doesn't factor in all cases. I'm not saying that this approach works with everything,
just that it can replace that of sending people to the ground. In any case, given that sort of defence you're talking about, it entirely loses the aim of the original argument. I don't see how infantry are going to get past defences where megatonnes of fire power isn't going to dent.
Not every single planet is going to have this sort of capability. There are some which are going to be cowed by your own fire power without you actually sending anyone to the ground.
In any case, the presence of an atmosphere is going to maximize the effects of certain weapons several fold. You can steadily rely on shockwaves to multiply the force of explosions that would not exist in space. Installations that can fire slugs big enough to harm interstellar ships aren't likely to be present all that much to isolated mining communities. And even if they can afford one, it seems quite easy to get out of its general direction. It's aim will also be questionable. You're going to be shooting a moving target several hundred kilometres away that probably knows you're aiming a large gun at it.
Getting back to the main point. You don't really need to have enough firepower to actually win in an outright firefight with the planetary locals to intimidate them. Most people who settle down, often don't want the type of trouble fleets can cause. They will realize that their static location makes them incredibly vulnerable. Take for example a village, it might be able to win in a direct confrontation with a bunch of bandits through numbers alone, but it's often not going to be the case that they will actually take that route. They will look for peace if possible, pay the bandits to leave them alone for instance.
-
Given that planets cannot be terraformed anymore, I would be hard pressed to accept that factions WOULDN'T invest in those kinds of defenses.
And even if there were border worlds that do not have substantial defensive capabilities to the point where they can expect no reinforcements, lack planetary batteries, and cave to that pressure, that does not remove the usefulness of a ground combat operation. After all, major Hegemony worlds WILL have them.
Your arguments on the capabilities on whether a surface mass driver could hit a star ship apply equally to any starship weapon in general. If you can have a moving object hit another moving object with a moving object, you can have a static object hit a moving object with a moving object.
-
It's just a matter of how big the fleet is compared to the defences of the forces on the ground and their resolve to fight. In most cases given a equal base in fire power, the fleet can cause the planet or outpost far more than they're able to receive in damages. Simply being a nuisance is quite easily doable for the fleet due to the static nature of these outposts and the mobility of the fleet. Crippling the colony is often far easier than outright defeating all their counter measures.
Given that planets cannot be terraformed anymore, I would be hard pressed to accept that factions WOULDN'T invest in those kinds of defenses.
Attacking population centres is not the aim here, mining outposts and other resource extracting outposts or small installation that don't have many people or that massive an infrastructure are the target. Given the number of independents flying around in the system I do not think it unreasonable to assume that there are some groups of people who haven't aligned themselves. And given that there's a corporation that operates pretty much independent of anything above it, I think small scale operations like I'm describing are going to be a dime a dozen.
The installation doesn't need to be a terraformed planet either. Mining installations can exist on asteroids,
And even if there were border worlds that do not have substantial defensive capabilities to the point where they can expect no reinforcements, lack planetary batteries, and cave to that pressure, that does not remove the usefulness of a ground combat operation. After all, major Hegemony worlds WILL have them.
Unless their firearms are capable of hitting ships in orbit, those ground forces are going to be at the complete mercy of the fleet above them. How would ground forces be able to use of violence in a way that a ship can't? These people are living in an age of starships where combat takes place beyond eyesight. There have been historical examples of cities and villages where there were soldiers inside of them that have surrendered. You're obviously going to need more firepower to intimidate these, but it's still possible to do- especially if the fleet has shown itself more than willing to destroy small outposts if they don't make a deal with them.
In regards to retaliation, there are three answers. One is that the incompetency of the Hegemony and their decaying infrastructure might mean that they ignore small fry that get attacked by bandits. The Tachyons might see it costing them more to remove the fleet than the colony is worth in itself. Thirdly, there are going to be independent outposts that don't have the backing of either side.
It's just bandit gunboat diplomacy. We want the cooperation of this small town, and we'll make their lives so much harder until they give in.
Your arguments on the capabilities on whether a surface mass driver could hit a star ship apply equally to any starship weapon in general. If you can have a moving object hit another moving object with a moving object, you can have a static object hit a moving object with a moving object.
That's if you don't burn up the projectile in the atmosphere. It will also have to be moving sufficiently fast enough to hit a moving target through weather. At those speeds you'd probably have to worry about the ensuing firestorm around the installation. In any case, I don't see other than the largest population and industrial centres fielding this sort of installation. Missiles seem far easier to deploy.
-
I feel the need to refocus here.
I agree completely that orbital bombardment holds the final word in terms of military engagement. After all, if an incoming fleet is willing to do anything and everything, they need not even engage population centers from high orbit. They could just push out kinetic projectiles from a much, much further orbital and calculate it to hit basically whatever you wanted. I also agree that for worlds without heavy population centers, or strategic resources, or strategic assets, it is unlikely that a planet-- or asteroid, as you've pointed out-- would be able bolster the defenses require to overcome the agility of a fleet with attrition, and again, in those cases it is far more likely than not to just give in to an incoming fleet's demands, if their own system defense fleet were defeated.
But I am, and was always, talking about the existence of ground operations, not the situations in which they would not be called for. By the same token that a small world would not be able to bolster defenses, that same world would have the least value in terms of material extortion. The big stuff-- great shipyards, population centers, material wealthy colonies-- would unquestionably be jealously guarded by not only extensive planetary batteries, hidden missile silos, command bunkers, and conventional defenses dispersed among civilian populace, but ALSO by great system defense fleets, and the promise of reinforcements within a timescale of weeks, or even days.
Taking those kinds of objectives without civilian casualties is not as simple as sitting in orbit, pointing your guns, and expecting them to put up with you, nor is it a question of simply zapping anything that moves on the surface. Atmosphere works two ways, and for projectiles, it heeds only one law-- relative velocity. By that, I mean that if orbital ballistic bombardment can be made to work, so too can surface defense mass drivers. It gets worse when you consider the capabilities of missiles, whose launch sites could be anywhere, the far side of a planet, concealed by cloud cover, or just so numerous that a fleet could not hope to hold out on a timescale of weeks burning to avoid that many missiles. These are the situations that call for ground combat, for the insertion of enough troops to secure whatever it is that you want, or to disable enough defenses that your fleet can afford to take a breather.
There is another form of ground operation that is useful, even in the worlds of 'gunboat diplomacy', as you describe it: direct action special operations. In the realm of military terminology, 'direct action' special operations are small scale operations that openly employ force. Snatch and grabs, assassinations, hostage rescue, that sort of thing. In the world of Starfarer, that term could be expanded to, say, a pirate kidnapping a valuable Tri Tachyon executive for ransom, a Hegemony special forces unit covertly assassinating a local leader, or a Tri Tachyon CEO quietly resolving a 'boardroom dispute'. These are the kinds of things where you either can't impose orbital firepower, or are severely restricted in what you might call down-- but things where having an eye in the sky and a ride out of system would be VERY useful.
And, putting all the sense-making aside. Ground combat is COOL. And troop transports are already coded into the game. Also, who doesn't love the marines? Oorah and all that.
-
While you were discussing orbital bombardment, I figured "hey, instead of completely decimating everything down there, Why nor do it smarter, like for instance, using gamma rays to destroy the atmosphere, or using neutron rays to decimated the population. That way, you conserve the depots and valuables, while at the same time you don't need any threats. It's yours for the taking :)"
-
As I've said, once you get into world ending operations-- which we can do TODAY-- the concept of 'war' and 'ships' pretty much goes outside the window. Ecosystems and live sustaining planets are way more delicate than we know, and it doesn't take complicated science to wreck them; hell, we're doing it as we speak.
But Starfarer has lots of war, and it has lots of ships, and its set in a starfaring (lolololol) setting, so it therefore follows that extinction level acts are either somehow impossible or simply unthinkable. It's a necessary function of the fiction-- otherwise we have no Starfarer.
-
In the interest in keeping this thread on track, I will bow out, and in doing so concede defeat for the time being :P.
-
In the interest in keeping this thread on track, I will bow out, and in doing so concede defeat for the time being :P.
But that's giving your opponent 5 prestige while lowering your prestige!
((Cookie for those who get the reference.))
-
Le CK2?
-
No, haven't played it yet (heresy, I know).
Close, though. Same company. Later in history.
-
whether a surface mass driver could hit a star ship apply equally to any starship weapon in general. If you can have a moving object hit another moving object with a moving object, you can have a static object hit a moving object with a moving object.
I'd just like to point out that hitting a starship that takes any precautions whatsoever from a ground based firing position is nearly impossible.
You basically have 3 types of weapons.
Kinetic slugs fired from a great cannon or mass driver etc.
Missiles that seek their target.
Electromagnetic radiation, mostly lasers.
Missiles can easily be shot down by point defence weaponry before they pose any threat.
Kinetic slugs are limited by the presence of an atmosphere, which limits their speed to about mach 25 or approx. 30,000 km/h or they would vaporize very quickly and given the target ship is most likely around 35,000 kilometers away (that's earth's geostationary orbit in which the object is constantly above the same point on the surface) and so it would take over an hour for the slug to reach it's target well enough for the ship to move away. lasers suffer from refraction in atmosphere which hinders their energy efficiency so it would require outrageous amounts of energy to deal severe damage to a well armored ship beyond the atmosphere.
Lastly, easiest way to bust planetary defences is simply push an asteroid on them, a task which would pose no problem to capital ships with propulsion in mega-newton scale.
-
I've literally already addressed every single point you've made.
-
I recall reading a sci-fi book that detailed a photon canon that could reach into space pretty well and it was able to get power directly from the planet core.. :)
Anyway, one thing for projectiles and missiles is that they could be two or three stage weapons, one that gets them past the atmosphere and the next to propel them through space. Obviously more complex and expensive, but that is probably the most viable way other than defenses already in space.
But what I said may have already been mentioned earlier. Forgive me if I missed it and am just repeating what someone else said.
-
I recall reading a sci-fi book that detailed a photon canon that could reach into space pretty well and it was able to get power directly from the planet core.. :)
Anyway, one thing for projectiles and missiles is that they could be two or three stage weapons, one that gets them past the atmosphere and the next to propel them through space. Obviously more complex and expensive, but that is probably the most viable way other than defenses already in space.
But what I said may have already been mentioned earlier. Forgive me if I missed it and am just repeating what someone else said.
Was the book part in a serie of books called "the traci ganner books"? If so, then i've read it too :D
-
Has anyone here read the Lost Fleet series of books? Some of the hardest military sci fi I've seen, and a load of fun too.
-
Has anyone here read the Lost Fleet series of books? Some of the hardest military sci fi I've seen, and a load of fun too.
Am actully looking for some good sci fi books now. How's the book?
-
Too much "science" and "realism" in this thread recently, and not enough "fun" or "gameplay."
Depending on the scale of the Starfarer campaign, I doubt controlling a world by force is even really something worth dealing with, and I'd much rather have a lot more in-space content than muck about with battles on land.
-
Has anyone here read the Lost Fleet series of books? Some of the hardest military sci fi I've seen, and a load of fun too.
They're pretty great, and I introduced a few people on this forum to them some time back, including Alex himself. And yeah, it does go to some effort to be plausible, though that's not to say that there isn't some amount of hand-waving as well. Most importantly, though, it presents an internally consistent paradigm of space combat and uses it to present interesting battles and, more generally, an interesting story.
-
Too much "science" and "realism" in this thread recently, and not enough "fun" or "gameplay."
Depending on the scale of the Starfarer campaign, I doubt controlling a world by force is even really something worth dealing with, and I'd much rather have a lot more in-space content than muck about with battles on land.
Agreed. Though it would not be bad to hold a complete sector on a iron grip in the later game, as a means to gain reputation, money, but at the same time managing your economy and defending against attacks from other factions, like the cult of lud :)
-
Was the book part in a serie of books called "the traci ganner books"? If so, then i've read it too :D
Nope, haven't heard of that series but it looks interesting. The one I was talking about is Star Soldier (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Soldier-Book-Doom-ebook/dp/B003SNJVH4/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2), only sold on Amazon.
@Iscariot, I have not, but I like military sci-fi.. :)
A pretty interesting series is the Spinward Fringe (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Spinward-Fringe-ebook/dp/B004EPYUXA/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1) books. Some of them are a bit annoying, but the first book is free so you can get the gist of it.
Another great author is Peter F. Hamilton (beware, all his books are very long and can take a good 100+ pages to really get going, but it is totally worth it).
Fallen Dragon (http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Dragon-Peter-F-Hamilton/dp/0316021830/ref=pd_sim_b_8) doesn't have any space combat in it (that I recall) but it is a cool standalone book.
Pandora's Star (http://www.amazon.com/Pandoras-Star-Commonwealth-Saga-ebook/dp/B000FC1AFC/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1) from The Commonweath Saga is a pretty sweet set of books that has some AWESOME space battles in the second and third books...
The Night's Dawn Trilogy (http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Dysfunction-Nights-Dawn/dp/0316021806/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_6) is a weird series, but pretty fun and has some really nifty Sci-Fi elements in it... Though it also has some weird supernatural stuff...
And lastly, one of the most gripping and realistic depictions of space combat comes from the Succession Series (http://www.amazon.com/Risen-Empire-Succession-Scott-Westerfeld/dp/0765319985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332264928&sr=8-1). Really enjoyed these two books and they are easier to get into than the other ones I've mentioned...
Anywho, that ought to give you some stuff to check out.
-
Has anyone here read the Lost Fleet series of books? Some of the hardest military sci fi I've seen, and a load of fun too.
Am actully looking for some good sci fi books now. How's the book?
They're simple, but they're very consistent, and unlike military sci fi by scum like John Ringo, there isn't a hint of fascistic jingoism to be found. John Geary, the protagonist of the series, is adamantly and absolutely a man of deference to civilian government, even when it schemes against him because he knows that military junta would be worse.
Too much "science" and "realism" in this thread recently, and not enough "fun" or "gameplay."
Depending on the scale of the Starfarer campaign, I doubt controlling a world by force is even really something worth dealing with, and I'd much rather have a lot more in-space content than muck about with battles on land.
As I said, planetary operations need not take the entire planet, and they need not be any more complicated than post battle boarding. If you'd like to see that removed as well to make way for 'more in-space content', then that is your perogative.
As for the too much 'science' and 'realism'-- I didn't bring that to discussion, someone else did. I merely defended ground operations on those grounds, and putting that aside, the contempt for 'science' is something that I really can't respect at all. Paying no service to science in science fiction simply means that science fiction becomes defined by its useless tropes rather than its thematic use of science. It contributes to the homogeneity of science fiction for the future.
-
Science fiction is all well and good (I'm a big fan) but I'm playing Starfarer to have fun. I don't want to get involved in ultra-complex logistical calculations or whether or not atmosphere diffracts lasers; I want to customize and fly ships, create a fleet, and blow things up through a combination of tactics, harebrained piloting, and brute force.
I could not care less if the ships make "sense" scientifically or are based on tropes, as long as they behave appropriately and in a fun and reasonably balanced manner I am happy. Regardless of whether they're space fighters or ships of the line.
-
Then let me put it bluntly.
...putting all the sense-making aside. Ground combat is COOL. And troop transports are already coded into the game. Also, who doesn't love the marines? Oorah and all that.
Obviously I can't account for your complacency, but that's my opinion on the matter, and the reason why I started discussing it in the first place.
-
Science fiction is all well and good (I'm a big fan) but I'm playing Starfarer to have fun. I don't want to get involved in ultra-complex logistical calculations or whether or not atmosphere diffracts lasers; I want to customize and fly ships, create a fleet, and blow things up through a combination of tactics, harebrained piloting, and brute force.
I could not care less if the ships make "sense" scientifically or are based on tropes, as long as they behave appropriately and in a fun and reasonably balanced manner I am happy. Regardless of whether they're space fighters or ships of the line.
Fortunately, having things make sense doesn't have to mean the result isn't fun, it just adds to the fun for some folks. Therefore, this isn't a dichotomy.
-
Right.
In the interest of clarity (and because my own brand of lightheartedness doesn't always communicate well on message boards) I am attempting to make two points:
1.) I do not wish to sacrifice balance or fun in the name of complexity and realism. A lot of what I see debated on these forums is placing a heavy emphasis on "realism," which makes me slightly worried that the end result will be less fun. There is a balance to be struck here, but first and foremost this is a "game."
For instance, I find the idea of sleek, fast, yet devastating vaguely plane-shaped space fighters to be "fun," opening up new strategies and avenues of attack while making people make loadout decisions to deal with them. Yet, these fighters are hardly "realistic." Also, I enjoy the possibility that, for instance, low-tech ships would be balanced and able to stand up to high-tech ones, even though this doesn't always work out in the real world. It makes for good gameplay.
2.) This gets into my second point. Too many rules and too many systems can get in the way of enjoyment of the gameplay. I've played a few tabletop wargames and more than a few indie games that fell off the deep end in this regard.
It creates a fantastically steep learning curve that makes it very difficult for people to get into the game, and (more importantly right now) can divide up development time. Plus, it can be just unwieldy.
Really, I'm not "against" ground combat. I just think it's hardly a priority in a game that's so heavily based on space combat, and I would much rather see said space combat be the absolute best and most fun it can be before tacking on additional systems and complexity.
-
1.) I do not wish to sacrifice balance or fun in the name of complexity and realism. A lot of what I see debated on these forums is placing a heavy emphasis on "realism," which makes me slightly worried that the end result will be less fun. There is a balance to be struck here, but first and foremost this is a "game."
For me, "realism" went out the window when spaceships entered the picture. Internal consistency of the setting is another matter, though, and *that* I'd like to maintain as much as possible.
A certain amount of "realism" does enhance the experience - it's just that I don't think the "realism" can ever truly lose the quotes (since we've already got spaceships, fighters, etc), and so takes a back seat to other considerations.
-
1.) I do not wish to sacrifice balance or fun in the name of complexity and realism. A lot of what I see debated on these forums is placing a heavy emphasis on "realism," which makes me slightly worried that the end result will be less fun. There is a balance to be struck here, but first and foremost this is a "game."
For instance, I find the idea of sleek, fast, yet devastating vaguely plane-shaped space fighters to be "fun," opening up new strategies and avenues of attack while making people make loadout decisions to deal with them. Yet, these fighters are hardly "realistic." Also, I enjoy the possibility that, for instance, low-tech ships would be balanced and able to stand up to high-tech ones, even though this doesn't always work out in the real world. It makes for good gameplay.
People's discussion in the absence of new developments, blogposts or releases aside, there seems to be around zero basis to believe that Alex and co. are about to start making Starfarer more complex than it needs to, rife with micro-management or purposefully unbalanced. If anything, the reverse seems to be true: while the game doesn't have a tongue-in-cheek tone (thank potential deity, since I tend to find it annoying and more often than not, seems to be used as an excuse by the devs not to have to polish their game) and it aims for an atmosphere of general plausibility, that doesn't ever seem to override issues of balance or fun.
As for the low-tech versus high-tech ships, I do think there is a legitimate reason to have high-tech ships be generally superior - it gives the player the choice whether to have a larger fleet of cheaper but individually less capable ships or take the relatively high-risk-high-payoff way of individually more capable ships that, if lost, are costlier to replace. What's more, it gives different factions a different character in combat through their different ship designs and weapon load-outs. So long as the high-tech ships aren't too much better - and I think the last release addressed some of the outstanding issues in that regard - having different tech levels available is a net benefit or the game.
(More personally: all else being equal, I prefer plausibility. However, while there are things in Starfarer that, looked at more closely, fail a reality check, the bottom line is that the game is awesome and the combination of genre and feel of the game make me more than happy with the balance they've struck. And so far as I can tell, it boils down to "design a great game, then rationalise the design choices in terms of lore afterwards where practical" most of the time. The carrier mechanics are an example of where they've explicitly stated that yeah, the way it works in the game doesn't make sense in-character but provides the best gameplay they've managed to come up with. And besides, I don't think space combat being a matter of autonomous kill drones and relativistic kinetic projectiles launched from a distance calculated in AUs would make for a particularly interesting game despite being probably the most realistic scenario.)
2.) This gets into my second point. Too many rules and too many systems can get in the way of enjoyment of the gameplay. I've played a few tabletop wargames and more than a few indie games that fell off the deep end in this regard.
It creates a fantastically steep learning curve that makes it very difficult for people to get into the game, and (more importantly right now) can divide up development time. Plus, it can be just unwieldy.
Really, I'm not "against" ground combat. I just think it's hardly a priority in a game that's so heavily based on space combat, and I would much rather see said space combat be the absolute best and most fun it can be before tacking on additional systems and complexity.
Seriously, I don't think you need to be worried about this. Alex and co. have, if anything, a record of streamlining absolutely everything they can so long as it doesn't result in shallow gameplay. For instance, the abstraction of all the ammo, repair materials and so on into a generic "supplies" cargo type, the way carriers work in the game at the moment, the standardisation of weapons into four damage types (kinetic, high explosive, energy and fragmentation) each with significant differences rather than a collection of slightly different unique weapon effects, the way weapon and engine damage works in the game and so on. I think you need not worry that Starfarer is going to go the Dwarf Fortress here. If anything, I'd compare it to World of Tanks - extremely simple to pick up, but with plenty of stuff going on beneath the surface so that there's room to improve and the game isn't too shallow. It's a great balance for this kind of action game.
Given the game has troop transports, I'm sure Alex has some plans for some kind of conquest being included. Whether that includes planetary invasion or only taking over space stations remains to be seen.
P.S. I don't think this has anything to do with the 0.51a release anymore and might be better off in a new thread in the General Discussion area.
-
Bah, Thana stole all I meant to say.
Except that I think being able to turn your prow in any direction you want without having to change heading is way more interesting-- and ooooh, realistic-- than stupid space planes. Luckily, we've got that.
-
With the current "Low Tech vs High Tech" situation, it's a bit biased.
Because currently, the "High Tech" has almost exclusively Fast Attack and Strike ships, while the Low-Tech has almost exclusively Balanced or Assault-focused ships. The imbalance is really significant at the Frigate and Destroyer levels.
High-Tech:
Medusa - Fast Attack Destroyer
Buffalo - Freighter
Wolf - Balanced Frigate
Tempest - Fast Attack Frigate
Hyperion - Fast Strike Frigate
Omen - Fast Point Defense Frigate
Low-Tech:
Buffalo MK II -Outdated Fire Support Destroyer
Enforcer - Assault Destroyer
Condor - Fire Support Carrier
Tarsus - Freighter
Hound - Outdated Fast Attack Frigate
Brawler - SLOW Assault Frigate
Lasher - Balanced Frigate
Dram - Tanker
Midline:
Hammerhead - Assault Destroyer
Sunder - Close Support Destroyer
Gemini - Freighter/Carrier
Valkyrie - Troop Transport
Vigilance - Balanced Frigate
Shuttle - Balanced Frigate
As you can see, there aren't any real "Fast Attack" ships in the low-tech or midline areas yet. And there aren't any slower "Assault" ships in the high-tech. And since, on average, Fast Attack ships can out maneuver, out point-control, and outlast most Assault and Balanced ships, it gives High-Tech a huge edge. There's currently nothing that can rival the firepower/speed combo that Tempests and Medusas have. And there really needs to be. I wanna see people debating about "Tempests vs *Insert fast low-tech ship here*" for which Fast Attack ship they prefer, with each one having tradeoffs. There shouldn't be any ship that is "Total crap" or any ship that's "The Best, period", IMO. Just a couple examples...
Maybe a low-tech fast-attack ship has incredible speed like the Tempest, but is less maneuverable and has a lot of forward-locked hardpoint mounts instead of turrets. It can carry more weapons and has better armor than the Tempest, but can't spin around and circle-strafe very easily. Make it be a ship that focuses on "Making passes" like fighters because it's slow to turn. It'd get a reputation as "Powerful, but hard to control". It doesn't make the Tempest no longer a great ship. It just gives it a rival.
Or a jury-rigged Pirate Fast Attack Frigate that packs insane firepower and speed, but has weak shielding/armor and has a hull more fragile than even the Tempest due to shoddy construction. A true "Glass Cannon"
Or a Midline Fast-Attack ship that has a unique shape and an odd balancing of Ballistic and Energy weapon slots. Give it a unique quirk like an oversized Weapon Slot, or a weapon slot in an odd, but useful orientation (Rear-firing missiles, perhaps?).
I'm not saying make everything the same. I'm just saying that we need some more ships of each role on each side to balance it out. Fast Attack Low-Tech ships that have skimpy shields and armor, but fast speed and good weapon hardpoints. Assault High-Tech ships that are only average-speed, but have extremely good venting, efficient shields, good strafing ability, and more weapon hardpoints than turrets. High-Tech carriers. Midline carriers. Just tons more ships in general.
Once each tech level has multiple ships in each size for each role, THEN we can look at balance. But currently, it's really hard to compare a high-tech "Fast Attack Frigate" to anything "Fast Attack" that the low-tech can muster right now, simply because the low-tech stuff doesn't have anything designed for Fast Attack yet.
-
awesomely said! I totaly agree with what Nanostrike said.
-
Hey i'm a bit new but when do ou guys think the new update will be out?
I love the game but I feel it deserves more of a community (it would definetly help)
I though since TB did a video on Starfarer it would have like thousands upon thousands of players :(
-
Unfortunately single player games don't lend itself quickly to large communities like Minecraft. If this is a DOTA game, the player base would be far more active online for example.
Keep in mind the game is still in Alpha with only combat mechanics and limited modding option. As the game development progresses and the sandbox option becomes available, expect the community to grow exponentially.
-
Unfortunately single player games don't lend itself quickly to large communities like Minecraft. If this is a DOTA game, the player base would be far more active online for example.
Keep in mind the game is still in Alpha with only combat mechanics and limited modding option. As the game development progresses and the sandbox option becomes available, expect the community to grow exponentially.
I've seen both the Minecraft and DOTA communities. Frankly, I'm VERY glad that this game isn't attracting people like that.
-
Amen to that. :)
-
Not familiar with those communities. If they are half as bad as League of Legends communities, that would be bad.
-
I've seen both the Minecraft and DOTA communities. Frankly, I'm VERY glad that this game isn't attracting people like that.
:P Certain parts of the Minecraft community isn't bad. For instance the Bukkit people... I frequent their forum and think that they are a decent group. However, the official MC forums are rife with entitiled 10 year olds... :)
Original DotA community is vicious to be sure... I'm in the DOTA 2 beta though and so far the people have been pretty civil. Time will tell though.
Anyone here play the DOTA 2 beta?
-
Unfortunately single player games don't lend itself quickly to large communities like Minecraft. If this is a DOTA game, the player base would be far more active online for example.
Keep in mind the game is still in Alpha with only combat mechanics and limited modding option. As the game development progresses and the sandbox option becomes available, expect the community to grow exponentially.
I've seen both the Minecraft and DOTA communities. Frankly, I'm VERY glad that this game isn't attracting people like that.
as a member of the League(of legends) community... Yeah. Lets not attract that.
-
High-Tech:
Buffalo - Freighter
Low-Tech:
Buffalo MK II -Outdated Fire Support Destroyer
How does the Buffalo class as high-tech while the Buffalo Mk II (which is a refit of the same ship) come out as low? ???
-
Obviously in the past they copied the blueprints from in the future and made a variant before the original one was even thought of.
-
Probably something along the lines of *guy points at shield generator* "Hey, anyone know what this piece of junk does?" 'nope' *guy rips out shield generator*
-
Modding a cargo ship is probily lots easier than modding a warship. Cargobays are essentially empty rooms. AC-130 is essentially a modded cargo plane.
-
I keep having problems with the AI of Capital ships and cruisers. While im piloting a capital ship if i ask another capital ship to come escort me so we can take on an enemy capital together the ai will drive across the front of me activate their shields to avoid a collision and just stay there as we go in to battle, this stops me from fighting as the AI gets my capital destroyed.
-
I keep having problems with the AI of Capital ships and cruisers. While im piloting a capital ship if i ask another capital ship to come escort me so we can take on an enemy capital together the ai will drive across the front of me activate their shields to avoid a collision and just stay there as we go in to battle, this stops me from fighting as the AI gets my capital destroyed.
Not much you can do about that except always ensuring you're flying the faster of the two ships. You can use the strafe keys to "sidestep" the guy in front of you, but that can take a while in capital ships, which are rather slow!
-
Hi, can anyone tell me if there is a way to load a 0.5a save game on 0.51a or if a new game is needed?
-
I think I read that they are not compat. That is usually the case in alpha.
-
Hi, can anyone tell me if there is a way to load a 0.5a save game on 0.51a or if a new game is needed?
You do need to start a new game.
-
I keep having problems with the AI of Capital ships and cruisers. While im piloting a capital ship if i ask another capital ship to come escort me so we can take on an enemy capital together the ai will drive across the front of me activate their shields to avoid a collision and just stay there as we go in to battle, this stops me from fighting as the AI gets my capital destroyed.
Yep, it also happens to me when trying to attack multiple ships. Even if it is from a distance.
-
About escort - it's not meant for capital ships supporting each other. They're just too slow to effectively escort anything, and a lot of the cruisers are too. The automatic assignments take this into account and pick a reasonably-fast ship for escort duty, but if you choose to override it and assign something slow, don't be surprised when it doesn't work out :)
-
About escort - it's not meant for capital ships supporting each other. They're just too slow to effectively escort anything, and a lot of the cruisers are too. The automatic assignments take this into account and pick a reasonably-fast ship for escort duty, but if you choose to override it and assign something slow, don't be surprised when it doesn't work out :)
Would it be possible for in any future updates to have a command that allows capital ships to stay within a reasonable distance of each other? It would be useful for overpowering Paragon classes and for protecting Astral class carriers from other capitals and cruisers.
-
Would it be possible for in any future updates to have a command that allows capital ships to stay within a reasonable distance of each other? It would be useful for overpowering Paragon classes and for protecting Astral class carriers from other capitals and cruisers.
A judicious use of Assault and Defend orders should already allow that, no? Perhaps with a direct order thrown in for good measure.
-
The problem with that is that orders all ships instead of just the capital ships. And it eats up command points fast, which are limited.
-
- JSON files are now merged recursively (possible to add, say, a portrait to a faction, a new fleet type, or a new starting ship - without conflicting with other mods that do the same)
How does this work? i have tried to add a new fleet type to a faction but it gives me this error:
4010 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.String - java.lang.RuntimeException: Spec of class [com.fs.starfarer.loading.return] with id [tritachyon] already exists
java.lang.RuntimeException: Spec of class [com.fs.starfarer.loading.return] with id [tritachyon] already exists
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.SpecStore.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.SpecStore.?0000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.SpecStore.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.loading.G.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.super.A.?0000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.String.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)
-
Did you include tritachyon in your mod's factions.csv, by chance? You don't want to do that - that would cause the same faction to be loaded twice and result in the message you're seeing. You'd only add entirely new faction files to factions.csv.
-
Did you include tritachyon in your mod's factions.csv, by chance? You don't want to do that - that would cause the same faction to be loaded twice and result in the message you're seeing. You'd only add entirely new faction files to factions.csv.
I did not included tritachyon and if i remove from the csv the new file with the new fleet the game start but the file is not loaded and the game crash when it try to spawn the fleet
-
Aha, I think I see. You have to name the file "tritachyon.faction" and then *not* include it in factions.csv.
The game will look at the vanilla factions csv, see tritachyon.faction, then look for all the copies of that file it can find - vanilla + mod - and then merge those.
-
Aha, I think I see. You have to name the file "tritachyon.faction" and then *not* include it in factions.csv.
The game will look at the vanilla factions csv, see tritachyon.faction, then look for all the copies of that file it can find - vanilla + mod - and then merge those.
Ok, now it works