It was a very interesting read and I'll be looking forward to how "combat readiness" will impact the way Starsector unfolds. Very clever way of tackling the frigate superiority problem indeed!
P.s I'm glad I decided to give Starsector a go, the frequent updates and patches really helps keep up confidence in this project among us supporters
I love the idea behind the mechanic, it definitely creates an excellent bridge between the campaign and combat. However, some of the combat-side effects concern me slightly, namely the effect this has on frigates: about how much time would it take for a frigate to go from its peak readiness to "totally absolutely useless"?
Actually, let me rephrase this and ask a more general question: how do the various levels of CR translate into combat effectiveness? Would 100% correspond to a ship being manned by completely elite crew with full supplies and HP? And how ineffective will ships with 0% CR be? Totally useless, or just significantly impaired?
Ah, okay, that's pretty much what I was hoping for. Honestly, I think it would be a bit more meaningful if the penalties and benefits were a bit more spread out, such as -+25% for peak and zero, but at the same time, make it so it's fairly difficult to be at 100% or absolute zero. But as you said, there's a ton of playtesting to do, so I'll leave you to make that decision yourself :P
Any chance of new skills that modify the combat readiness of ships?
One thing that's not quite clear to me: Is it common for (non-frigate) ships to loose CR during a battle, depending on its actions? Or is this something that happens generally after battle? Both mechanics seems to be planned, but how are they weighted?
The frigate change is interesting, but narrows down their tactical diversity a lot. Is a frigate in a defensive escort role useless now?The obviousOne possible answer would be frigate combat-maintenance on carriers. They are an easy target and their destruction interrupts any lone-frigate kiting, but they allow support frigates to stay active along with a big fleet.
I love the tags of the post ;D
Sounds jolly clever indeed! Excited to see the final implementation.
Hmm. I get what you're saying about carriers, it makes sense mechanics-wise, but seems a little arbitrary - after all, the specialized equipment carriers have seems unrelated to, say, letting the power junctions inside a frigate cool off. It'd be tough to sell this visually in way that made it clear what's going on. Kind of reminds me of munitions ships, actually. Neat idea, but kind of clunky-seeming in practice
Hmm. I get what you're saying about carriers, it makes sense mechanics-wise, but seems a little arbitrary - after all, the specialized equipment carriers have seems unrelated to, say, letting the power junctions inside a frigate cool off. It'd be tough to sell this visually in way that made it clear what's going on.
Also: have you thought about letting high-tech weapons influence CR? Or will it be influenced by weapons at all?
...Also: have you thought about letting high-tech weapons influence CR? Or will it be influenced by weapons at all?
Ion weapons might do just that.
What I meant: Will expensive weapons take longer to regenerate? I imagine a small PD to be back in action rather fast, compared to an AM Blaster or even a HIL/Tachyon Lance.
QuoteHmm. I get what you're saying about carriers, it makes sense mechanics-wise, but seems a little arbitrary - after all, the specialized equipment carriers have seems unrelated to, say, letting the power junctions inside a frigate cool off. It'd be tough to sell this visually in way that made it clear what's going on. Kind of reminds me of munitions ships, actually. Neat idea, but kind of clunky-seeming in practice
What about assigning this role to Freighters?
Maybe Firgates get worse in Combat because they run out of supplies and every repair is just jury rigged (and they can't "turn" the multi purpose supplies into what they need while they are in combat)
This means Freighters could get a new system wich allows them to drop a supply crate (3 times per battle?)
Once the Frigate picks up the Crate, it stops moving and can't do so for a certain while and after that it gets some CR points back and can head back into the battle
An interesting read, and I definitely like the opportunity for even more strategic play in the Campaign. However, one thing about this worries me: how much RNG will this throw into the game?
RNG is generally not a very fun thing to deal with (think situations where you shout in frustration because one of your ships just happened to malfunction). If the percentages are low, this can introduce instances where the few times it happens are especially frustrating, and if they're too high, it feels like you're fighting the game rather than the opponent.
So, I'd like to encourage ideas that avoid RNG gameplay rather than a percent chance for a ship to fail. Sub-optimal performance (debuff to its stats) is fine, because it's always on and you can account for it.
On the flip side, random events can be interesting, especially if the player is made well aware they're at risk for it (much like the Accidents system). So, at the very least, I'd like to see a CR % in the battle, to make sure that frigate you're sending into battle isn't actually CR 5% and will crap out on you in a moment's notice.
With that in mind, why not make it so that CR instead starts to drop after a certain amount of damage is done to the shields? Ships that are too effective at retreating can simply be given a low threshold before CR starts to drop, limiting the amount of attack runs they can do at peak efficiency without preventing them from being kept back to be used when needed. Ships made for the line-of-battle on the other hand can be given a very high threshold allowing them to brawl with the enemy without having to worry much about CR. By adding hullmods that affect the threshold then you can make so that variants can be designed that have a higher threshold for escorts or have increased speed at the cost of a lower threshold for fast attack ships.
I can imagine ship needs ammo/energy cells, oxygen and repair materials for repairs after combat but simply degrading ship after time limit even then ship does not received any damage is strange to say the least. Only thing which comes close to explanation is crew fatigue after some time in combat so ships with high crew count will fight more effectively over time.
AI must retreat immediately if the fleet cant catch frigates. I cant imagine player will pursue and fight 20+ battles to kill some slow cruisers or battleships because its boring and definitely not fun.
Arbitrary? Not more so than CR degradation only affecting frigates ;)
Anyway, I think the frigate mechanic needs a lot of thought/trying out. Aside from the already mentioned issues it encourages some other "boring but effective" tactics, for example to stay in close defensive formation without much firing until the enemy frigates have run out of CR.
I'm wondering how CR will work with Auto-complete. Will it make it unnattractive choice when its a clear win (as in, will it deploy as much as it can to get an assured victory)? In any case, i'm excited for being able to use Frigates that aren't Tempests after early-game. The rest of them feel too squishy and slow when capital ships start getting into play.
What I meant: Will expensive weapons take longer to regenerate? I imagine a small PD to be back in action rather fast, compared to an AM Blaster or even a HIL/Tachyon Lance.
Please don't make us have to purchase ammo though, I hate that in ship games, "Aww sweet can't wait to finally take on this fleet!" *goes into battle**realises he has no ammo* "FUUUUUUUUU..." *gets killed in 6 seconds flat*
And don't even get me started on the different types of HE ammo or the logistics involved in safeguarding antimatter rounds.
* Only a few of the frigates are "over powered" yet this change impacts all of them
Again, "next blog post" :)
You'll have to purchase at least 10 separate times of autocannon rounds and painstakingly match them to the right weapons in a QTE. Each failure will auto-deduct 10% CR and will require faster responses in the next attempt.
And don't even get me started on the different types of HE ammo or the logistics involved in safeguarding antimatter rounds.
What skill aptitude class will CR-affecting skills, if any, wind up in?
One thing nobody mentioned yet is the danger that CR introduces prolonged waiting periods. At the moment you can go from battle to battle as long as you don't mess up and have to repair. Will I have to run or hide after every medium battle now, so my CR can regenerate? How is that not a bad thing?
- Does it apply both in and out of combat?
- Is this something that would affect my performance in battle or is more related with my next engagements?
- Short-term or long-term, maybe both?
- Does it introduce more random events and situations (love these, but they are unpopular with a lot of folk)?
- Does it encourage the RTS element more (To be honest, I haven't been able to use it much, piloting takes priority in current builds in my opinion)?
also I think the blog said something about costing supplies to field ships but isn't very clear about it. How does it work? Are FP a thing of the past? What about missions and things of that nature?
also how moddable will this system be?
EDIT: also how does this interact with the AI and AI spawned fleets?
Wouldn't really work across the board. The "effective but boring" strategy would then involve waiting out not only enemy LRMs, but also their ammo. So, ok, that wouldn't work vs high-tech ships, but low-tech ships would still be susceptible.
As far as fighters, that's interesting. I'm still considering what to do with them, but the general consensus on the forum seems to be that they're underpowered, rather than over.
One thing nobody mentioned yet is the danger that CR introduces prolonged waiting periods. At the moment you can go from battle to battle as long as you don't mess up and have to repair. Will I have to run or hide after every medium battle now, so my CR can regenerate? How is that not a bad thing?
That's a good question, and I don't think it has a simple answer. I think it will work because of a combination of the following:
- There will be time pressure to get things done (i.e., you could wait for optimal CR or you could go and save your outpost)
- There's a maintenance cost to simply flying around, so it's not as "appealing" (in quotes because it's never actually appealing)
- The pacing of encounters will be different, i.e. longer natural delays between fights
- You'll be able to fight a few battles before CR became a pressing issue
- There may be TOP SECRET emergency means to boost CR at a cost
The first one is the most important, though. As long as time has no meaning, any kind of delay is a pain; hence the insta-repair option at the current Oribtal Stations. But when time actually causes things to happen, managing those delays will become a strategic consideration. For example, supposing CR took a really long time to regenerate, you might set things up so that you could work in a trading run while it did. Or, if there's a pressing danger, you might decide that you have to go for it with low CR, and damn the torpedoes.
Managing what ships you actually deploy vs how much CR it costs/how long it takes to recover is part of it, too. If you don't pay attention to that, you would be likely to run into CR and supply problems.
Perhaps I phrased by my post poorly, the loss of CR is caused by taking too much shield damage, not dealing it. If anything, this would make ammo less of a problem since enough damage would eventually make keeping the shields up too prohibitive for the target.
Since we are talking about ammo, how about being able to reload ballistic weapons at the cost of CR, to represent the crew scrambling to grab and load ammo crates out of the cargo hold?
The emphasized line alleviated most of my concerns with this system. :)
However, I am wondering about players like me who like to stick with very small fleets (my current setup is an Apogee, a Wolf and a single Wasp wing). Will there be a bonus to CR regeneration if you aren't using your full fleet point potential?
Is there some direct way to set the supply consumption caused by CR? Maybe a toggle or something to bring your crew up to "High Alert" for a limited amount of time with the benefit of having extra CR and the downside being huge supply consumption?
An interesting read, and I definitely like the opportunity for even more strategic play in the Campaign. However, one thing about this worries me: how much RNG will this throw into the game?
RNG is generally not a very fun thing to deal with (think situations where you shout in frustration because one of your ships just happened to malfunction). If the percentages are low, this can introduce instances where the few times it happens are especially frustrating, and if they're too high, it feels like you're fighting the game rather than the opponent.
So, I'd like to encourage ideas that avoid RNG gameplay rather than a percent chance for a ship to fail. Sub-optimal performance (debuff to its stats) is fine, because it's always on and you can account for it.
On the flip side, random events can be interesting, especially if the player is made well aware they're at risk for it (much like the Accidents system). So, at the very least, I'd like to see a CR % in the battle, to make sure that frigate you're sending into battle isn't actually CR 5% and will crap out on you in a moment's notice.
Ah, I figured someone would bring this up :) I think in this particular case randomness is not a problem. It's not something you'll have to deal with all the time, because you really shouldn't be deploying ships in this state unless you're desperate.
And, you *can* manage it somewhat - stopping engine use when it's partially flamed out, saving a weapon shot for a critical moment to make sure you can get it off, etc.
Will it be frustrating sometimes? I'm sure it will. But I think it'll also bring a degree of tension to the proceedings, which is... well, good.
Right, I got that from what you said. What I mean is you can avoid almost all shield damage in a frigate, so long you're exclusively concerned with baiting out and dodging shots, rather moving in to get damage done. I think it's just going about the issue in a way that can inherently be circumvented, and if you're going to add brand new mechanics to fix it, they should probably do a more reliable job of it.
That's a good question, and I don't think it has a simple answer. I think it will work because of a combination of the following
Is the loss in CR a constant effect or does it only apply after a certain amount of time has past?
I'm going to have to disagree with you about RNG. Randomness has the potential to make things interesting, but it can also be really, really frustrating. Just look at FTL- if you're properly prepared, you can handle any situation with varying degrees of difficulty. Any random event that can potentially cause loss of crew, resources, or hull can be avoided entirely. You might have to get into combat with another ship or run away, but as long as you understand the risks, you and your choices ultimately determine the outcome. It's very rare for the randomness to truly reach 'unfair' levels.
If you're still going through with it, please at least give the option to disable CR, or certain aspects of it in the options menu.
EDIT: If frigates still lose CR based on time in combat, they should at least have a major bonus to recovering out of combat. Major.
What if when you reach low CR levels, the engines might visibly start to flicker, and if you push them too hard, they'll pop? Once it hits that point, perhaps the less CR is has, the less you can push them before they blow out. Once they get back online, you can use them normally for a time, then when they start flickering again, you decelerate or stop using them before they re-stabilize.
As for weapons something similar. Push them too hard while low on CR, there will be a visual indicator (sparks maybe?) and if you keep firing they might blow out for a few moments, depending on how low your CR is.
Will be a hell of a balancing job, though.
Interesting mechanic.
A few worries about frigates losing CR though:
Won't you suddenly have a huge incentive for the player to micromanage their frigates even closer? Or will you add an auto-retreat or similar function for frigates?
Won't it be somewhat nasty to players with low-Command Point builds since ordering retreats cost CPs?
Interesting mechanic.
A few worries about frigates losing CR though:
Won't you suddenly have a huge incentive for the player to micromanage their frigates even closer? Or will you add an auto-retreat or similar function for frigates?
Won't it be somewhat nasty to players with low-Command Point builds since ordering retreats cost CPs?
An interesting idea would be a hull mod that you could only put on frigates which allows you to have them retreat at no CP cost (call it emergency Chanel or some such thing)
If you ask me (which you didn't) I'm not sure it's sensible to completely deconstruct and rebuild the CR mechanic prior to it even making its way in to a playable version of the game.
CR degrading during combat with immediate effect is fine so long as CR degradation is directly related to activity. Think soccer game, a defender who see little action would retain more stamina as oppose to a forward who's been running back and forth. A frigate on escort duty should probably be less drained than one performing hit-and-run - before it see some action, that is.
I think a lot of people commenting here are worried that CR would just become a "timer" for frigates. This could be the case if in-combat CR degradation is too fast actually. I think the focus should be more about the long term effect - yes this frigate just kited a task force to death, but when can it do it again?
Gothars, for once i agree with you in basically every way :DSpoilerI have to bring up frigates again.
So, the problem with them is that they are too fast, their speed allows them to kite indefinitely. True, that's problematic. The planned solution is to degrade their overall performance to the point where they should be retreated.
So I have to ask, why not specifically degrade the one stat that is the problem, IE degrade speed? That way the would loose the ability to kite, but stay useful in other roles such as escort or Objective protection.
A way to implement that would be this: Frigates above ~40% CR get a substantial speed bonus, due to their special high performance engines. Those engines loose stability, so the CR drops until they go offline at <~40%. Then it stops dropping further. The frigate is now slower, but still reliable.
That could even be easily communicated graphically: Either reduce the size of the exhaust flame gradually or (/and) deactivate some of the engines completely (many frigates have big and small engines, one type could be classified as high performance). I think it's more intuitively plausible than the whole ship falling apart, too.
/e Maybe that concept could even be expanded to speed hullmods. That way you'd prevent players from building long-duration-kiters out of destroyers or bigger ships. Could for example be applied to a percentage based speed hullmod, but not to fixed value ones so slow ship can still be (hull-)modded reasonably fast.[close]
I feel that larger ships should lose CR during combat too. It feels like a strange gameplay and story segregation. Why wouldn't larger ships lose combat readiness as the fight wears on? Sure larger ships would have more space to keep the replacement bits and bobs, and they'd have more personnel to rotate through so they don't burn out. So it would make sense for them to lose CR slower, and maybe have a longer delay for CR loss.
As it stands now I balk at using frigs with any char that has points for larger fleets. The control point bonuses really add up. So if frigates are the only ones that burn out as the fight wears on there is little incentive to make them anything besides fighter popping fools that then immediately flee after the points are capped. Or just not use them.
How will fighters and CR interact? What if that was their "hat" so to speak? I love fighters for their multi-fight stamina now. If they always maintained a high level of combat-readiness in conjunction with a flight deck they'd be much better with little other changes. Presumably they'd run out of spare ships to use eventually, and their CR would begin to degrade.
I don't think it comes through clearly, but I'm really excited about combat readiness. I like balancing one aspect to another, and CR adds time as an aspect.
I guess the TL;DR is I like consistency; even if it isn't a constant. The ITU and the injector are good examples of that.
So, the problem with them is that they are too fast, their speed allows them to kite indefinitely. True, that's problematic. The planned solution is to degrade their overall performance to the point where they should be retreated.
So I have to ask, why not specifically degrade the one stat that is the problem, IE degrade speed? That way the would loose the ability to kite, but stay useful in other roles such as escort or Objective protection.
I see that others disagree, but I really like the idea of limiting the role of frigates (and maybe buffing the existing frigates/adding new ones to compensate). Having fighters be a fleet's long-endurance escort and strike tool and making frigates skirmishers and scouts helps clear up the blurring of their roles (and the perception among a lot of us, though obviously not all, that there's no reason to bring fighters when you've got a couple Tempests available). If you did want to preserve some frigates as dedicated escorts, though, you could also divide the class in two: frigates would be slower vessels with heavier armament, suited to escort or assault (Lasher, Wolf, Brawler); something else—corvettes?—would be the fast attack craft (Tempest, Hyperion).
Anyway, I hear this whole CR mechanic needs a lot of playtesting! When do we get to, uh, test this stuff?
kinda off-topic aside about FTL:SpoilerSomebody brought up FTL as an example of randomness done right; I personally think that randomness in FTL spoils what's otherwise a great game. It's true that later in a game, a skilled player can prepare for and deal with any random event. In the early stages, though, randomness is king. Not only is the player unprepared to deal with many random events, but every bad outcome snowballs into a worse one, which is not a problem inherent to roguelikes. The fact that you have a finite number of jumps means that the first few you make are ridiculously important. If your first two jumps result in damage to the ship and nothing gained for it, you might as well quit and start over. Not good design![close]
CR degrading during combat with immediate effect is fine so long as CR degradation is directly related to activity. Think soccer game, a defender who see little action would retain more stamina as oppose to a forward who's been running back and forth. A frigate on escort duty should probably be less drained than one performing hit-and-run - before it see some action, that is.
1. Will the size of fleet have any influence on speed at which ships are gaining CR betwen battles? (I can imagine small fleets being able to regain it faster than big ones due to much less betwen ships cargo and personel transportation, but on other hand I can imagine that every ship is a separate kingdom which is dealing with it's own problems using it's own supplies and personel so maybe it really should not have any impact at all)
2. Will it be possible for certian ships to improve speed of regaining CR betwen battles for other ships in a fleet? (having ship dedicated for cargo or personel transportation would make it easier for other ships in a fleet to deal with their problems - afther all they do not need to deal with those "good for nothing" marines which alweys get in the way of working staff, and do not need to waste time to take all suplies to cargo bay and secure it, because there are ships in a fleet that are dedicated to deal with those things. And even if they are unable to deal with all surplus of personel and suplies, they defienietly are making other ships' crew's life a lot easier)
3. And how about fighters/bombers and carriers? Will fighters and bombers be affected by this at all? Or maybe they will be affected, but not directly - each time they are landing on a carrier they are reducing carrier's CR?
Also, will certain weapons decrease CR a lot more? Say, if a salamander hits the engines, I can only imagine the havoc that would cause. Or if a couple of Plasma Cannon rounds hit your weapons, you're not gonna want to use them, right?
And one last thing, will low-tech weapons like, say, a Helbore Cannon (which only has a few moving parts) or an arablast autocannon or a flak cannon be better or worse with CR? I can see arguments for both sides, and I'm wondering what you think...
Oh man, this is going to be a lot of typing. Here we go.Also, will certain weapons decrease CR a lot more? Say, if a salamander hits the engines, I can only imagine the havoc that would cause. Or if a couple of Plasma Cannon rounds hit your weapons, you're not gonna want to use them, right?
And one last thing, will low-tech weapons like, say, a Helbore Cannon (which only has a few moving parts) or an arablast autocannon or a flak cannon be better or worse with CR? I can see arguments for both sides, and I'm wondering what you think...
Maybe :) There's a possibility that EMP weapons might have some interaction with CR, though I'm far from being decided on that. As for specific weapons... there's a point where adding more detail only makes things complicated and not "better", and that point actually comes up pretty quick.
3. And how about fighters/bombers and carriers? Will fighters and bombers be affected by this at all? Or maybe they will be affected, but not directly - each time they are landing on a carrier they are reducing carrier's CR?
Hah! Funny, one of the ideas I'm considering actually is having fighter refit use up carrier CR instead of supplies directly. This is good, probably means that it's a natural way to handle it.
I'd just like to make one related suggestion: These CR changes should come with the ability to declare your flagship at deployment time, or greatly reduced CR cost for deploying your flagship. These could be functions of skill perks - maybe something in command aptitude offers the former ability, while something in combat offers the latter. But what I'd like to avoid is things like "I've fought a couple of battles with Apogee1, so now I need to quickly swap flagship to Apogee2 before the next fight starts", or "This fight isn't worth deploying my personal battleship, therefore I get to sit out some of it until my shuttle can catch up to one of the frigates I deployed", or the like. The current transfer command mechanism is great for during combat, but really clunky right at combat start.
I also like the idea that an "inactive" frigate doesn't degrade CR (or does so much more slowly) - and I'd define "inactive" as: zero flux, shields down, and not moving at greater than (some percentage of?) its non-zero-flux-boosted top speed. So, a frigate stuck sitting and guarding a node, or escorting a carrier, isn't going to degrade that quickly, while one racing to capture a node will degrade at full rate, even if it's clever enough to turn off its engines and coast.
How about removing that ability away from EMP weapons and instead make it so that a damaged gun/engine decreases CR more? Maybe even let it decrease CR during a battle for all ship sizes? Repairing a module during a battle is something that might even involve a crew member going into space - you don't have to go into that much detail. I'm pretty sure that it's rather taxing on the crew, and if you fight a larger enemy you can decrease his effectiveness in battle by targeting his weapons/engines.
Interesting mechanic.
A few worries about frigates losing CR though:
Won't you suddenly have a huge incentive for the player to micromanage their frigates even closer? Or will you add an auto-retreat or similar function for frigates?
Won't it be somewhat nasty to players with low-Command Point builds since ordering retreats cost CPs?
Oh man, this is going to be a lot of typing. Here we go.
Since frigates run low on CR in a sustained battle, do they regain it more quickly outside of battle?
3. And how about fighters/bombers and carriers? Will fighters and bombers be affected by this at all? Or maybe they will be affected, but not directly - each time they are landing on a carrier they are reducing carrier's CR?
Hah! Funny, one of the ideas I'm considering actually is having fighter refit use up carrier CR instead of supplies directly. This is good, probably means that it's a natural way to handle it.
I am sdmike1 and I approve this idea.
How about removing that ability away from EMP weapons and instead make it so that a damaged gun/engine decreases CR more? Maybe even let it decrease CR during a battle for all ship sizes? Repairing a module during a battle is something that might even involve a crew member going into space - you don't have to go into that much detail. I'm pretty sure that it's rather taxing on the crew, and if you fight a larger enemy you can decrease his effectiveness in battle by targeting his weapons/engines.
I'm just happy this will let me keep some outrageous things from my mod fun, like the ultra-maneuverable destroyer, and get more tools to balance them with. You know, modding this game is a really great experience - after getting to a certain point, it feels like the mods can grow along with the core game in a very natural manner. When you want to add to the core game rather than replace it, that is a very pleasant way to go about it.
I'd just like to make one related suggestion: These CR changes should come with the ability to declare your flagship at deployment time, or greatly reduced CR cost for deploying your flagship. These could be functions of skill perks - maybe something in command aptitude offers the former ability, while something in combat offers the latter. But what I'd like to avoid is things like "I've fought a couple of battles with Apogee1, so now I need to quickly swap flagship to Apogee2 before the next fight starts", or "This fight isn't worth deploying my personal battleship, therefore I get to sit out some of it until my shuttle can catch up to one of the frigates I deployed", or the like. The current transfer command mechanism is great for during combat, but really clunky right at combat start.
I also like the idea that an "inactive" frigate doesn't degrade CR (or does so much more slowly) - and I'd define "inactive" as: zero flux, shields down, and not moving at greater than (some percentage of?) its non-zero-flux-boosted top speed. So, a frigate stuck sitting and guarding a node, or escorting a carrier, isn't going to degrade that quickly, while one racing to capture a node will degrade at full rate, even if it's clever enough to turn off its engines and coast.
SpoilerIt's pretty unfortunate to see what I can really only call a nerf to frigates with no way of really counteracting them, aside from the obvious and silly method of allowing them to dock in Astrals.
I was always the kind of guy who used my frigates in fleets in pairs, trios, or quintets making great use of the command system to carefully distract or predate loose ships and now they seem entirely pointless. The favour of an aggressive play-style? With ships that can be swatted like mere flies? Where's the thought for the beginning of the game, or players that prefer like me to be slippery and defensive wherever possible? How can you slowly craft a fleet if your beginning ships just give up halfway through any given battle? What's even the point of expensive ships like the Hyperion or Tempest if they become useless halfway through?
Think about it - the Hyperion's journey of balance could almost be charted, going from weakness, extreme weakness, extreme strength, slightly less extreme strength and now pretty much just a reaper missile in ship form. These aren't fighters and you can't just say with them that they lose steam after a while - they're fully fledged ships with cargo bays, crew housing, fuel bays, weapon systems, AI PD systems, and they were (mostly) all designed to be able to survive on their own, they're just smaller destroyers and bigger fighters. Why just nerf them like that without, say, doing the same to destroyers or fighters? I mean, uh, the Medusa! It's like a Tempest but bigger, and quite a bit slower. That's a very, VERY good kiting ship - should this mean destroyers get the problem too? Well then, what about the Falcon? Or the Conquest/Odyssey? Or ANY fighter? Should they have to return to their carrier every few minutes? That I can kinda understand, but then again, I'm always used to having it that a fighter was designed to fly around for ages (some being designed to scout alone far ahead of their fleets) and it'd return to base when it hit bingo fuel or alternatively ran out of ammo, but that was really often not for like half an hour.
Methinks a better idea with relation to this is that frigates are dangerous to have on the field because damage to them causes CR to go down VERY quickly - IE, they're so small the systems aren't properly defended against explosions 'n'stuff, instead of them running down slowly for no apparent reason other than 'balance'. That way, you make it so that players have to be careful with their frigates and mistakes will really hurt them, accommodating defensive and aggressive players in equal measure.[close]
Alex, you missed my post.Interesting mechanic.
A few worries about frigates losing CR though:
Won't you suddenly have a huge incentive for the player to micromanage their frigates even closer? Or will you add an auto-retreat or similar function for frigates?
Won't it be somewhat nasty to players with low-Command Point builds since ordering retreats cost CPs?
possible across-the-board speed buff
possible across-the-board speed buff
Oh please let it happen.
You could always make retreating Frigates free?
So, the problem with them is that they are too fast, their speed allows them to kite indefinitely. True, that's problematic. The planned solution is to degrade their overall performance to the point where they should be retreated.
So I have to ask, why not specifically degrade the one stat that is the problem, IE degrade speed? That way the would loose the ability to kite, but stay useful in other roles such as escort or Objective protection.
The main reason to do so is to take advantage of an already-existing mechanic, rather than slapping on a brand-new one just for this purpose. I'd actually considered doing this a few releases ago, but decided against it just because it'd be too... random? Arbitrary? Ham-fisted? Using existing CR effects ties it in nicely with the rest of the game, the lore, etc. Now, tying a different set of CR effects specifically for frigates is different, since that's not so disconnected from the rest of the game anymore, but I have to ask: why? Existing CR effects do the job just fine without complicating things by having even more rules.
You could always make retreating Frigates free?
Yeah, that's definitely a possibility if it becomes an issue. Would just rather avoid extra rules as much as possible, you know? If there's a workable solution within the existing ruleset, the bar for anything outside of that goes way up...
Or retreating costs CR and if you are at 0 CR then you can still retreatI like that. It sounds elegant. I've always been unhappy with retreat orders costing CPs.
Or retreating costs CR and if you are at 0 CR then you can still retreat
The conclave of top-level flux theorists is still debating the finer points of the physics involved. As such, we're not prepared to issue an official statement at this time. Rest assured, citizen - the Hegemony Administratum will issue a Sector-wide priority bulletin if the situation changes.
My guess is someone has mentioned this at some point and so there's probably been a discussion about it, but what about allowing non-combat ships onto your fleet that do not count against your fleet limit. That would let players add tankers or maybe repair ships or other non-combat ships to a fleet that would never be put into combat (no weapons). If this was possible it makes sense to me that ships that are in a low CR state would actually become non-combat ships until such a time as their CR increases enough to allow them to be deployed. Non-combat ships in a losing fleet are either boarded or scuttled at the end of combat.
Lastly, I have to agree with many of the other guys that have been posting about frigate usefulness once you have amassed enough for a cruiser and a cap ship. I do like having 2 frigates around for capturing nodes early in combat so I can field more ships, but beyond that I mostly use them to kill fighters.
The way I see it it is exactly the interesting thing about non-combat ships is that they compete with combat ships about FP. That way you have to decide if you want a high-power low-endurance fleet without support or the opposite.
Right, keeping it simple. Hope it works out. Did you try kiting in a 0% CR frigate already, is it (more or less) impossible? I could imagine that a frigate with 15% worse stats and occasional engine problems is still capable of kiting with the right tactic (gliding a lot), especially if the fastest enemies and missiles have been taken care of at the beginning. And, you know, the last thing we'd want is to have kiting as a still effective, but now even more tedious tactic.
Or retreating costs CR and if you are at 0 CR then you can still retreat
Yes, that looks more elegant/refined.
Add me to the "ooh shiny" crowd ;D
Various disjointed thoughts
Some ideas involving freighters/tankers have already been bounced around. Mine: how about "tender" functionality for these ships (perhaps with hullmods)? Such ships would keep the CR level of a fleet up, by (for instance) reducing CR losses during long voyages, and speeding up its recovery following combat.
If crew from other ships could help out with CR, it might give potential use to ships like the Valkyrie which I might've not used otherwise (except for as a giant marine transport for boarding).
Maintenance ships could also be great, increasing the rate at which CR comes back.
This concept was so awesome it made me de-lurk, and go through the account process. I'm a bit worried I got the "average number of ears" question wrong though.
With this blog post goes my occasional lurking on the comments sections ( goodbye blog comments and hello forums! )
But anyways, will CR regeneration be affected by overall crew level or by the amount of crew (with the higher crew levels being more effective at maintaining the ship )? And will crew from other ships be able to help out?
IMO the most 'elegant' way to implement the frigate fix would be to add an extra stat like 'Peak Readiness Time' (endurance?) to ships. That way there's a unified way to have ships like the Medusa or Aurora be less able to tank out battles, and also allows for slower 'escort' frigates and destroyers to exist, without saying things like "X suffers from readiness degredation" on some ships that suffer it and not others (if the default is frigates do, bigger ships don't). Then cruisers and above can have 5-10 minute times, making them more clearly the best choice for long fights. It also gives a clear mechanical stat to differentiate the high & low-tech ship types. Conveniently it'd also prevent things like taking on entire system defence fleets with tricked-out ships of any type- as long as there's a steady supply of reinforcements, you get worn down. Perhaps only cap-ships could be exempted, if anything?
That said symmetry for symmetry's sake is not always great, if it's only really frigates the mechanic is needed for expanding it to ships where it'll be largely irrelevant might not help.
well, it IS combat based right now, but I feel that's because combat is worked on first rather than anything else.
Economy and logistics, as alex said, will be a major part of the game as well
Or retreating costs CR and if you are at 0 CR then you can still retreat
Yes, that looks more elegant/refined.
If retreat stops costing a command point, all of a sudden that really ups the burden on the player to watch every single ship for the optimal time to order a retreat. If it still costs a point, the optimal thing to do is likely to be batching those orders up, so it demands less attention and less constant status-checking.
There *is* a stat exctly like that, btw. As a nod to symmetry, not ALL frigates degrade during combat (the Brawler doesn't), and not all destroyers don't (the Buffalo Mk. II does). But, only having capital ships be exempt from this is a really interesting idea. Definitely something I'll keep in mind while seeing how this plays out.
Or retreating costs CR and if you are at 0 CR then you can still retreat
Yes, that looks more elegant/refined.
If retreat stops costing a command point, all of a sudden that really ups the burden on the player to watch every single ship for the optimal time to order a retreat. If it still costs a point, the optimal thing to do is likely to be batching those orders up, so it demands less attention and less constant status-checking.
Do you have any plans to force support ships into the line of fire? As I understand the way things stand, there is never any reason to deploy them into a battle. Their downside purely comes from the FP they use up and the amount they slow the fleet down. Just thinking about the general setting, it seems like targeting support ships would be a pretty logical way to weaken a force over the long run. I'm imagining being able to set or fall into ambushes somehow and one side having to deal with the vulnerability of their tankers.
Something I just thought of, how does CR interact with armor repair after battle? Will armor be fully repaired at the cost of a proportional amount of CR, will armor repair progress at the rate it does now, or will it be something in between?
Also, as for the kiting thing, since what has a player stepping on the thrusters is all the starting/stopping that kiting requires, what about something that would act like fuel, but for combat, such that they could only kite for so long?
Why not just put easy to read sign, like a life bar for CR for all of your ships on tactical map? It's not like tactical map is anywhere near crowded.
Besides, bigger problem would be command point shortage anyways. Command points are already so scarce yet so negligible in their positive effects (outside of most generic order of 'capture nav point A') that I am already encouraged to ignore command point system and to simply outfit AI ships to be more defensive so that they can just brute force their way out of the idiocy they sometime dwell in.
If frigates were to become this liability that require a command point per single frigate or else put my elite pilots in jeopardy, I imagine I for one would simply stop using frigates because it's already hard enough to justify frigates once cruisers come into play (outside of hyperion flagship).
Or take this approach... if players are suppose to order retreat to frigates/ships with low CR... shouldn't us players already be keeping an eye out for CR on all of our ships? So where would this extra burden come from if retreat were to cost CR instead of command point? You mentioned something about optimal order but I don't see how the optimal timing for retreat change because of the resource change since the cause/trigger for retreat remains identical (low CR).
I assume this means there's going to be a new Leadership skill for improving CR regeneration. Or reducing the hit you take when deploying ships. Perhaps both!
Yes. I'd like to see these ships in battle more, though not because of some in-combat benefit they might provide. I'm more or less settled on support ships having their benefits apply outside combat. The campaign needs more interesting mechanics, while combat is already chock-full of stuff.
Besides, bigger problem would be command point shortage anyways. Command points are already so scarce yet so negligible in their positive effects (outside of most generic order of 'capture nav point A') that I am already encouraged to ignore command point system and to simply outfit AI ships to be more defensive so that they can just brute force their way out of the idiocy they sometime dwell in.
If frigates were to become this liability that require a command point per single frigate or else put my elite pilots in jeopardy, I imagine I for one would simply stop using frigates because it's already hard enough to justify frigates once cruisers come into play (outside of hyperion flagship).
Or take this approach... if players are suppose to order retreat to frigates/ships with low CR... shouldn't us players already be keeping an eye out for CR on all of our ships? So where would this extra burden come from if retreat were to cost CR instead of command point? You mentioned something about optimal order but I don't see how the optimal timing for retreat change because of the resource change since the cause/trigger for retreat remains identical (low CR).
What I mean by "optimal" is "optimal play". If retreat orders are unlimited, then "optimal play" requires you to order retreats for damaged ships at precisely the right moments, and to do that, you'd have to constantly watch the map. If it requries a command point, though, you're going to batch up orders anyway, so when you decide to give some orders, you'll also look around for whatever makes sense to retreat, and do it then. So it's a mode of interaction that doesn't intrude on the piloting portion of the game as much.
I hope that makes sense. In the early versions of the game, you had completely unlimited orders... which made microing everything as much as possible "optimal". That just doesn't let you focus on the piloting nearly enough. Given how that worked out (or, rather, didn't), I'm extremely wary of allowing unlimited orders for anything.
As to whether frigates are "worth it", honestly, that's a side issue to this discussion. Making sure that they are would be a balance issue, whether it's from something they do in combat, or a way they behave in the campaign, or a combination of the two. There's nothing inherent to this mechanic that's going to make them worth it or not, and it's not like everything else about frigates is being held static - they're actually getting a speed buff to go along with this.
I could easily see frigates being stronger on the whole just because they regain CR out of combat faster.
Would not the problem of kiting be solved by lowering weapon range? Frigs with high speed have less targeting computers as well as less power for engines?
Would not the problem of kiting be solved by lowering weapon range? Frigs with high speed have less targeting computers as well as less power for engines?
(Is there an English term for Nadelstichtaktik (needle-stick tactic)?)I think "sting" or "prick" is a better translation of "Stich." You can say "pinprick attacks" or "pinprick tactics" in English. People also say "death by a thousand cuts."
(Is there an English term for Nadelstichtaktik (needle-stick tactic)?)I think "sting" or "prick" is a better translation of "Stich." You can say "pinprick attacks" or "pinprick tactics" in English. People also say "death by a thousand cuts."
Could we get, instead, some generic fleet-level orders? Here are some examples of things I'd like to be able to do:Besides, bigger problem would be command point shortage anyways. Command points are already so scarce yet so negligible in their positive effects (outside of most generic order of 'capture nav point A') that I am already encouraged to ignore command point system and to simply outfit AI ships to be more defensive so that they can just brute force their way out of the idiocy they sometime dwell in.
If frigates were to become this liability that require a command point per single frigate or else put my elite pilots in jeopardy, I imagine I for one would simply stop using frigates because it's already hard enough to justify frigates once cruisers come into play (outside of hyperion flagship).
Or take this approach... if players are suppose to order retreat to frigates/ships with low CR... shouldn't us players already be keeping an eye out for CR on all of our ships? So where would this extra burden come from if retreat were to cost CR instead of command point? You mentioned something about optimal order but I don't see how the optimal timing for retreat change because of the resource change since the cause/trigger for retreat remains identical (low CR).
What I mean by "optimal" is "optimal play". If retreat orders are unlimited, then "optimal play" requires you to order retreats for damaged ships at precisely the right moments, and to do that, you'd have to constantly watch the map. If it requries a command point, though, you're going to batch up orders anyway, so when you decide to give some orders, you'll also look around for whatever makes sense to retreat, and do it then. So it's a mode of interaction that doesn't intrude on the piloting portion of the game as much.
I hope that makes sense. In the early versions of the game, you had completely unlimited orders... which made microing everything as much as possible "optimal". That just doesn't let you focus on the piloting nearly enough. Given how that worked out (or, rather, didn't), I'm extremely wary of allowing unlimited orders for anything.
Will there be a marker or notification that your ships are losing CR during a fight?
Funny, one of the ideas I'm considering actually is having fighter refit use up carrier CR instead of supplies directly. This is good, probably means that it's a natural way to handle it.
Funny, one of the ideas I'm considering actually is having fighter refit use up carrier CR instead of supplies directly. This is good, probably means that it's a natural way to handle it.
Would that (finally) introduce a major performance difference to carriers? Like the Gemini being able to refit 5 wings and the Astral 50?
(As far as allowing AI parameters to be tweaked ("retreat at X% hull/CR", etc), it's not a road I want to go down. It sounds simple, but would imo introduce more problems than it would solve, and would ultimately need to be pretty intricate to work well, assuming it could actually be beaten into shape. Tweaking ship AI also isn't something I'm keen on having as part of the gameplay, as it's one of those things where if you have it at all, players have to use it to play optimally.
Cargo bay/fuel tank hullmods so solo ships can go on adventures without a supply bus in tow?
(Obviously needs to not be better for "normal" (multi-ship) fleets than bringing actual supply ships)
So how is CR going to work with auto-resolve? Do we have to pick what ships to send in before hitting the 'let your 2IC handle the engagement' button, or will it just sort of figure that out itself?
Good question; still working it out. I'm not all that sure auto-resolve is necessary right now, if there's still incentive to fight a challenging battle even if your fleet outmatches the enemy. But, yeah, still working on that.
Would that (finally) introduce a major performance difference to carriers? Like the Gemini being able to refit 5 wings and the Astral 50?
Good - All those freighters and tankers will now have a real use!
Bad - Playing with one ship will likely become impossible (My dreams of being a solo mercentary Minotaur captain just got shattered since i will have to keep at least 2 support frigates in tow now).
I've started a "Only-Frig" playthrough to check how long most of my battles take and realized one thing:
If I take on a hostile fleet that is too large to be destroyed within about 3-5 minutes and I decide to retreat, my fleet gets either destroyed or heavily damaged. Will I just have to attack smaller fleets or will frigates be immune to "damage by retreating", thus allowing more of a hit-and-run style?
I know that adding skills is something to wait on until after the initial implementation, and the feedback from the howling masses, but I think it would be good if it were touched on in more than one skill tree, Leadership could have a strong effect through Drills, high crew morale and discipline, But technology could also achieve the same or better results through more robust components and systems, Multiple redundancy, and system reconfiguration, Combat through a near perfect understanding of just how far and when you can push your beloved baby and Industry from a steady supply of superior grade, high quality parts and materials, and small luxuries for the crew
So how is CR going to work with auto-resolve? Do we have to pick what ships to send in before hitting the 'let your 2IC handle the engagement' button, or will it just sort of figure that out itself?
The upcoming campaign changes, do you think they will work well within the scope of a single system? Or will we need.. more? Cough.
So, you might see a build where a lot of ships or weapons simply aren't available in whatever corner of the Sector it features, that sort of thing.
QuoteSo, you might see a build where a lot of ships or weapons simply aren't available in whatever corner of the Sector it features, that sort of thing.
not sure if I'm reading this right....
So some features aren't gonna be available in campaign, despite being in the game? wha?
is this like the omen and the trident in older releases? Or is this something else?
The upcoming campaign changes, do you think they will work well within the scope of a single system? Or will we need.. more? Cough.
Good question :) I suspect they might not. In fact, regardless of how much coughing-induced-inference actually pans out for the next version, I wouldn't be surprised if the next release is less... stand-alone, I guess you could say. Corvus is just full of stuff right now - all the ships, weapons, factions, a ton of fleets.
Until the "real" campaign mechanics and content reach a critical mass, though, things might get a little awkward. I'll definitely have to pare down from the overflowing state Corvus is in right now, but I'm also not planning on spending a whole lot of time building temporary scaffolding around these "real" mechanics. So, you might see a build where a lot of ships or weapons simply aren't available in whatever corner of the Sector it features, that sort of thing.
Called it, don't get me wrong combat is fun and all but when sectors (or is it systems) are added that is when the real fun begins <Devil/EvilGrinEmoticonThatTheForumInexplicablyLacks>
Added to SectorAPI:
List<StarSystemAPI> getStarSystems() // returns just the one atm
I know that adding skills is something to wait on until after the initial implementation, and the feedback from the howling masses, but I think it would be good if it were touched on in more than one skill tree, Leadership could have a strong effect through Drills, high crew morale and discipline, But technology could also achieve the same or better results through more robust components and systems, Multiple redundancy, and system reconfiguration, Combat through a near perfect understanding of just how far and when you can push your beloved baby and Industry from a steady supply of superior grade, high quality parts and materials, and small luxuries for the crew
Good points all, I think.
Until the "real" campaign mechanics and content reach a critical mass, though, things might get a little awkward. I'll definitely have to pare down from the overflowing state Corvus is in right now, but I'm also not planning on spending a whole lot of time building temporary scaffolding around these "real" mechanics. So, you might see a build where a lot of ships or weapons simply aren't available in whatever corner of the Sector it features, that sort of thing.
Yay :)Would that (finally) introduce a major performance difference to carriers? Like the Gemini being able to refit 5 wings and the Astral 50?Not quite certain how the details will pan out, but that seems likely.
Will currently completed ships/weapons still be in the installation for those who just want to mess around (as in, could we just edit some campaign/save files to access those ships)? Either way it's alpha so there is no logical qualm to be had with your decision but it would be a small but nice bonus :)
Maybe it would be good idea to make minimal crew requirements less of a hard cut with the help of CR. It always felt quite strange that, in effect, one single crewmen is all that divides 100% efficiency from total incapacity. Even now the state of under-crewed ships is "not combat ready", since that is a real parameter in the next release, why not use it? Maybe lower the base CR a under-crewed ship can archive, so it drops continuously from the normal ~50% at minimal crew requirements to 0% at ~75% of minimal crew requirements. I would not even mint if you had to increase those min requirements to balance that out, it would just feel more natural.
But maybe something like this is already planned anyway, you did not go into detail about the relationship of crew number and CR...
..maybe I should have started this with a question, ha
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning for introducing it, which basically seems to be "We want to stop people doing boring but effective things". Surely it should be up to the player if they choose to take an hour to destroy a fleet?
Would that (finally) introduce a major performance difference to carriers? Like the Gemini being able to refit 5 wings and the Astral 50?Not quite certain how the details will pan out, but that seems likely.
in other words cuz balance 8) :D***snip******snip***
*cough (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5018.0)*I really love this idea
Would there be a way to tell a crew of a ship which functions they need to put at high priority when supplies are low? For example, I'm running low on supplies, and I tell my freighter to forget about maintaining the guns and just spend all your time on the engines when I'm plowing through pirate territory.Or even being able to say "Hey make sure that ship X Y and Z are on combat alert" giving them a boost in CR at the cost of supplies or CR from other ships in the fleet?
Heck, this could be done even without being low on supplies, it would at least be a way of mitigating some of that risk through preparation of some sort beforehand.
Wondering if hull modifications have been considered as factors for combat readiness?
Would that (finally) introduce a major performance difference to carriers? Like the Gemini being able to refit 5 wings and the Astral 50?Not quite certain how the details will pan out, but that seems likely.
I'm sure you're aware of it, there will have to be some way to limit the CR drain fighter repair would impose on carriers. Especially multi-purpose ships like the Odyssey or Venture would seriously suffer without it. I would hate a situation where suddenly my capital's engines begin to flicker because some Talon wing comes back for repairs every 15 seconds. Maybe just a lower limit specific for every class (like 5% on a Condor, 25% on an Odyssey). Or a manual toggle. Mh...That could even be combined with a launch toggle button *cough (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5018.0)*
I only now saw this blog post. Gotta say, I really like this idea. I'm in general a fan of things being on a sliding scale rather than discrete or especially binary, and both the in-character reasoning and the gameplay aspects of this make a whole lotta sense to me.
In other words, Alex, you've done it again. You've seen a problem where most people wouldn't even notice one, and developed an effective, elegant solution for it that makes the game even better than it was before. Kudos to you, man! You rock!
Would there be a way to tell a crew of a ship which functions they need to put at high priority when supplies are low? For example, I'm running low on supplies, and I tell my freighter to forget about maintaining the guns and just spend all your time on the engines when I'm plowing through pirate territory.
Heck, this could be done even without being low on supplies, it would at least be a way of mitigating some of that risk through preparation of some sort beforehand.
Not sure I'd consider finding a problem where others don't see one a compliment, necessarily, but I'll take it :) Glad you like the idea!
Not sure I'd consider finding a problem where others don't see one a compliment, necessarily, but I'll take it :) Glad you like the idea!
Increasing the complexity and deepness of the game is not what I define "finding problems".
Not sure I'd consider finding a problem where others don't see one a compliment, necessarily, but I'll take it :) Glad you like the idea!
Increasing the complexity and deepness of the game is not what I define "finding problems".
How can complexity in the game engine be bad? It's up to Alex to transform this complexity in an enjoyable form, but the problem of modern games is not "excessive complexity" for sure.
The new engagement system may already prevent this, but since I don't know here's my concern anyway. It's potentially one of those "Boring but effective" tactics. If you have a fleet of many small vessels, you can potentially wear down a far superior fleet of few big ships. Engage, deploy one frigate (forcing the enemy to deploy his cruiser or so) and retreat. If you repeat this your enemy might run out of CR long before you do. Just something to consider and make unappealing.
Actually, I think this could be a blessing in disguise. This will mean that there will be a reason to balance your fleet out, instead of just massing the latest and the biggest ships available.Ah, yes- it gives you a more strategic reason to have escorts. Harassed by frigates? Deploy your escort to counter them. No escort? You get gradually worn down.
However, my concern was about the reversed scenario where you have the small ships. I guess it could be easily avoided by penalizing all retreating ships with a CR loss.
Right, definitely something I'm aware of and working through the details of.However, my concern was about the reversed scenario where you have the small ships. I guess it could be easily avoided by penalizing all retreating ships with a CR loss.
That's likely going to be part of it, but I don't think it's quite enough. Losing all the CR on a Hound could still be far less important than losing 20% CR on an Onslaught, after all.
Reducing the CR deploy cost for ships if a fight results in an enemy retreat?
Not just balance. Go ahead and raise all speeds up to 1000000 (max combat speed is 666 I think). Do you know what happens?
I was just thinking about the Tempest and something occurred to me. Instead of having Terminator drones slowly being regenerated for free, could you instead have the regeneration of Terminator drones be tied to CR? This could be applied to any drone, really.
You could have a pool of replacement drones that, once exhausted, could be replaced at the cost of CR. Recalling your drones could halt the process, so you don't have to waste CR replacing the drones if you don't want to.
So that brings up the question, are there any plans to make any ship system use tied to CR at all?
And it would make the terminator drone ever so slightly less OP :DI was just thinking about the Tempest and something occurred to me. Instead of having Terminator drones slowly being regenerated for free, could you instead have the regeneration of Terminator drones be tied to CR? This could be applied to any drone, really.
You could have a pool of replacement drones that, once exhausted, could be replaced at the cost of CR. Recalling your drones could halt the process, so you don't have to waste CR replacing the drones if you don't want to.
So that brings up the question, are there any plans to make any ship system use tied to CR at all?
All drone replacement could cost CR.
Awesome idea. That would make the recall function even more valuable and add more interesting choices in combat.
This, to me, seems like a really bad idea. It forces you to second-guess everything you do- the optimal behaviour is then to move as little as possible, shoot rarely, not use shields... Essentially not 'play' the game. Those actions are fun, they shouldn't be penalised. Reducing CR on hull damage is also a bit iffy as you already suffer a supply cost to repair- reducing CR in-battle from damage will lead to death-spirals. The most memorable fights are those where it comes down to the wire. With death spiral mechanics, they're rarer.
deacceleration, shields, weapons shoud cost some CR, everything else shoud be included into deployment cost.
emp and hull\armor damage also shoud drain CR
deacceleration, shields, weapons shoud cost some CR, everything else shoud be included into deployment cost.I'm going to agree with Talkie Toaster. Making those actions cost CR wouldn't be fun, nor would it add that much depth to the game. It would just be annoying.
emp and hull\armor damage also shoud drain CRThese two however, I agree with, provided that hull/armor damage drains CR INDIRECTLY, as in the ship's CR drains as you repair the damage.
How about removing that ability away from EMP weapons and instead make it so that a damaged gun/engine decreases CR more? Maybe even let it decrease CR during a battle for all ship sizes? Repairing a module during a battle is something that might even involve a crew member going into space - you don't have to go into that much detail. I'm pretty sure that it's rather taxing on the crew, and if you fight a larger enemy you can decrease his effectiveness in battle by targeting his weapons/engines.
Interesting idea, and falls in line nicely with other things like missile weapon use reducing CR. Wrote it down as something to try out.
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remainingWaaaaaaaaaai? Did missiles really need a nerf? (Also, why aren't ballistics affected?)
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Waaaaaaaaaai? Did missiles really need a nerf? (Also, why aren't ballistics affected?)