Holy crap. Double battle size.
Changes as of March 13, 2013
Ships traveling over their top speed (due to zero-flux coasting, for example) will automatically engage maneuvering thrusters to slow down
Boooo! >:c I can't be the only one who actually liked zero-flux coasting. You even made the AI do it too.
Oh well. I guess with the new travel drive it could have harmful implications. But then, those maneuvering thrusters could be made to only engage when above the zero-flux speed, so you could still coast but not coast from travel drive.
What are your thoughts on it's interaction with stations though, will stopping by the dock for repairs restore CR?
Since the combat in the campaign is getting reworked, is it possible to make AI battles last a few days instead of getting immediately resolved? Like Mount&Blade, you can then come and assist in battles and so on. You could have a small window above showing how the battle is going. Would make the world feel more alive, right now all we see is small coloured circles go *poof* when they fly into eachother.
Ships traveling over their top speed (due to zero-flux coasting, for example) will automatically engage maneuvering thrusters to slow downlateral movement removed from game, this is sad.
Added ModPlugin interface:Combat aptitude now raises maximum CR for piloted ship instead of providing a damage bonusstrange, personally i expected skills related to CR go to industry branch...
Mount&BladeNoninstant combat shoud also allow to join in midtime and assist someone (or kill everything).
Good improvements in general but i don't like the timer on the frigate. All ships should have the same mechanics.
Also i think it would be better to remove battle objectives completely.
Good improvements in general but i don't like the timer on the frigate. All ships should have the same mechanics.
Also i think it would be better to remove battle objectives completely.
agree
Since the combat in the campaign is getting reworked, is it possible to make AI battles last a few days instead of getting immediately resolved? Like Mount&Blade, you can then come and assist in battles and so on. You could have a small window above showing how the battle is going. Would make the world feel more alive, right now all we see are small coloured circles going *poof* when they fly into each other.
Campaign battles mechanics:
Take place as a series of engagements, that is, a single "battle" may involve several head-on engagements and a pursuit of one side's remaining ships
Only two battle types are a head-on engagement by the two fleets, or one fleet escaping and the other in pursuit
Default battleSize increased from 100 to 200
Battle objectives no longer provide fleet points, only ship bonuses
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Changes to how escape works
lateral movement removed from game, this is sad.
Holy crap. Double battle size.Not really, right. It's just getting all those points upfront instead of from objectives.
Added "Battle size" setting to gameplay settings screen, range is from 100 to 500 with the default at 200.
Quote from: Alex on March 13, 2013, 07:52:34 PM
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Anything to counterbalance this? Missiles are not exactly overpowered at the moment, why would I want to choose them after this nerf?
shame abut the missiles too cuz i like to have long range supporting missile ship so when at the battle it's like tankers on front, long range at backs so its like more like in strategy games (archers always at backs) & now battle will mostly be like brute power less strategyQuoteQuote from: Alex on March 13, 2013, 07:52:34 PM
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Anything to counterbalance this? Missiles are not exactly overpowered at the moment, why would I want to choose them after this nerf?
You just destroyed the Valkyrians, their main weapon is missiles.. :'(
QuoteQuote from: Alex on March 13, 2013, 07:52:34 PM
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Anything to counterbalance this? Missiles are not exactly overpowered at the moment, why would I want to choose them after this nerf?
You just destroyed the Valkyrians, their main weapon is missiles.. :'(
Changes as of March 13, 2013
Ships traveling over their top speed (due to zero-flux coasting, for example) will automatically engage maneuvering thrusters to slow down
Boooo! >:c I can't be the only one who actually liked zero-flux coasting. You even made the AI do it too.
Since the combat in the campaign is getting reworked, is it possible to make AI battles last a few days instead of getting immediately resolved? Like Mount&Blade, you can then come and assist in battles and so on. You could have a small window above showing how the battle is going. Would make the world feel more alive, right now all we see is small coloured circles go *poof* when they fly into eachother.
This actually makes more sense now with the new combat mechanics :)
QuoteQuote from: Alex on March 13, 2013, 07:52:34 PM
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
Reduced missile ammo at below 30%, missile weapons at 0 ammo at 10%
Anything to counterbalance this? Missiles are not exactly overpowered at the moment, why would I want to choose them after this nerf?
You just destroyed the Valkyrians, their main weapon is missiles.. :'(
I'm just concern about enemy ships. AI is well known to be trigger happy with missiles. I hope this wont affect him much.
Still unhappy about the CR nerf to the frigates, with it, I'm not entirely sure what the point is of a Tempest or Hyperion is anymore - fast cap of an objective? Why give the tempests such gorgeous weapon capabilities if they'll just randomly derp half way through a battle? The Hyperion? Same, but both worse and better - it kinda makes sense since it's an experimental frigate and balances out the 15FP and teleporter, but the Tempest nerf I cannot understand... of course, I'd shut up if the price tags of the frigates really represented this.
I guess the saddest thing will be for me, personally, is this kills in one fell swoop any hope of ever creating Wanderer in a mod. And that pretty much reflects a lot of the other frigates I've seen in mods, Antediluvians will suffer horrifically from this and that's the fastest example I can muster.
But everything else? I like. I like CR as a concept, I really do. It ties this nice little link between having a percentage value of dead hull and seeing the effects of that dead hull, but this I cannot explain. Think of the Hound, that certainly looks like the kind of ship you'd spend an age flying around in and kiting and it'd do it's job all the same while you do it. Now? Nada. Can't be done.
Your choice Alex, and I may not necessarily agree with part of it, but that doesn't mean you'll change it because one person says 'I don't like it.' The most I can do is let you see where I stand on this. I repeat my old argument, CR in relation to frigates (and now destroyers) favours an aggressive, no holds bared frigates and destroyers to cap cruisers versus cruisers versus capital ships versus capital ships versus fighters versus fighters (mouthful!) action. And that's something I never thought I'd see Starf-sector do. It sounds, in principle, like it'll make combat much more arcadey. I played defensive, it's how I play these games. I use fast frigates to move my lines around rapidly and keep people moving. Now, I can't. I'm going to have to save for a cruiser immediately. I'll never be able to build a frigate fleet. I'll never be able to build a destroyer fleet. I'll have to adapt, and that's something I feel I simply should not have to do.
Still working on map generation, probably in about the same locations though. Basically, somewhat random but not to a point where the objective placement is going to win or lose the battle for you.
Still unhappy about the CR nerf to the frigates, with it, I'm not entirely sure what the point is of a Tempest or Hyperion is anymore - fast cap of an objective? Why give the tempests such gorgeous weapon capabilities if they'll just randomly derp half way through a battle? The Hyperion? Same, but both worse and better - it kinda makes sense since it's an experimental frigate and balances out the 15FP and teleporter, but the Tempest nerf I cannot understand... of course, I'd shut up if the price tags of the frigates really represented this.
I guess the saddest thing will be for me, personally, is this kills in one fell swoop any hope of ever creating Wanderer in a mod. And that pretty much reflects a lot of the other frigates I've seen in mods, Antediluvians will suffer horrifically from this and that's the fastest example I can muster.
But everything else? I like. I like CR as a concept, I really do. It ties this nice little link between having a percentage value of dead hull and seeing the effects of that dead hull, but this I cannot explain. Think of the Hound, that certainly looks like the kind of ship you'd spend an age flying around in and kiting and it'd do it's job all the same while you do it. Now? Nada. Can't be done.
Your choice Alex, and I may not necessarily agree with part of it, but that doesn't mean you'll change it because one person says 'I don't like it.' The most I can do is let you see where I stand on this. I repeat my old argument, CR in relation to frigates (and now destroyers) favours an aggressive, no holds bared frigates and destroyers to cap cruisers versus cruisers versus capital ships versus capital ships versus fighters versus fighters (mouthful!) action. And that's something I never thought I'd see Starf-sector do. It sounds, in principle, like it'll make combat much more arcadey. I played defensive, it's how I play these games. I use fast frigates to move my lines around rapidly and keep people moving. Now, I can't. I'm going to have to save for a cruiser immediately. I'll never be able to build a frigate fleet. I'll never be able to build a destroyer fleet. I'll have to adapt, and that's something I feel I simply should not have to do.
Think of the change as a challenge. To be a good commander you have to adapt to your surroundings. Also we have yet to try the final implementation of CR. Frigates will be units you just cannot spam anymore. Instead of fielding all 12 frigates of a frigate fleet you will have to fight with 4 at a time, isolate your enemies and rip them apart.
Soooooooo, with this update, what will mod ships from the previous versions have their CR set to? Is it an individual rating for each for each ship in the .csv, or it it determined by ship class/tech level? Will non-updated mods still work?
Since the combat in the campaign is getting reworked, is it possible to make AI battles last a few days instead of getting immediately resolved? Like Mount&Blade, you can then come and assist in battles and so on. You could have a small window above showing how the battle is going. Would make the world feel more alive, right now all we see are small coloured circles going *poof* when they fly into eachother.
edit: Oh, and Alex NOW is right time to give us that 0.6a version to test it for you ;D We gonna find bugs... and stuff... scout honor! ::) It's more of us then you, we will test it faster ;D
+1 I guess.Also i think it would be better to remove battle objectives completely.
agree
I'm sick in bed at the moment and this made me feel much better :)
I've got questions, though!
Maybe it is because of my condition, but I don't really get it. How can there be several head-on engagements? The "After a head on engagement"-options only seem to allow for an escape scenario next (assuming that "harry" is a pure text scenario).
Is it correct that ship deployment will no longer be staggered? Is there anything preventing us from deploying the whole fleet at once (aside from CR considerations vs. inferior opponents)?
Isn't that a huge blow to the usefulness of fast, small ships?
Anything to counterbalance this? Missiles are not exactly overpowered at the moment, why would I want to choose them after this nerf?
I'll have to adapt, and that's something I feel I simply should not have to do.
As somebody who prefers frigate swarms over any other type of fleet, I very much share xareh's concerns. I do however believe that Alex knows what he is doing and will be able to find a better solution than to eliminate a way of playing.
Objective placement rarely does... but nebula placement already can! Drop a random nebula on your spawn point, and suddenly it's vastly more difficult to get to nodes, deploy new ships, etc. And vice versa. May be less of an issue with being able to deploy more stuff up front, but, at least in the current missions, (most notably "the last hurrah"), the random nebula placement can easily swing the battle in either direction.
@Xareh: Right. Two points (one of which I think I brought up in the CR thread...)It certainly is too early to make these kinds of conclusions, though I was not conclusively concluding, I was asking a question. Numerous questions. Most of which were, designed and phrased, even if not neccesarily marked with correct punctuation, to be treated and answered as if they were a question.
It's too early to make these kinds of conclusions about how it plays out. All in all, the higher CR regeneration rate could make frigates more powerful in the grand scheme of things, even accounting for the in-combat drain (which takes a while to kick in).I'll have to adapt, and that's something I feel I simply should not have to do.
I strongly disagree. The game's still in development, and things change. Not everyone is going to like all of the changes, and I have to be ok with that. So; my apologies if you don't like something, but I have to do what I think is best long-term. Still open to feedback, of course, and did read what you said carefully.
It's not inherently a nerf. If missile-heavy ships get a reduced deployment CR cost as a result, it would actually be a bonus.
Correct. You can deploy everything
Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of weapons being disabled by damage
It's not inherently a nerf. If missile-heavy ships get a reduced deployment CR cost as a result, it would actually be a bonus.
Mh, I see. Still, if I am low on OP for a (non missile-boat) build missiles are among the first things I drop, this will encourage it further. Maybe there could be additional missiles if the CR is at a very high level to provide some symmetry?
It's not inherently a nerf. If missile-heavy ships get a reduced deployment CR cost as a result, it would actually be a bonus.
Mh, I see. Still, if I am low on OP for a (non missile-boat) build missiles are among the first things I drop, this will encourage it further. Maybe there could be additional missiles if the CR is at a very high level to provide some symmetry?
Correct. You can deploy everything
I guess I'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but it sounds as if two of the currently most important tactical elements are dropped, struggle for (initial) FP dominance and deployment order. Is there, well, anything new instead? I don't see any important tactical decisions at the beginning of a battle now...
Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of weapons being disabled by damage"or" maybe?
Anyway, does this include EMP damage?
Looks good! Question: will the harry and CR mechanic replace the semi-random damage currently being applied to retreating ships?
I like the idea of missiles getting an ammo bonus at very high CR - that would give an incentive to have elite crew etc on missile support boats.
Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of weapons being disabled by damage"or" maybe?
Anyway, does this include EMP damage?
Only indirectly, because EMP tends to disable weapons/engines when it hits.
Is it wrong that I looked at the Modding section of the patch notes first? :D
For BoundsAPI, if I'm reading this right the process to add to a bounds is to save the current list of segments, clear it, then rebuild using addSegment() with the new segments included? Or will the game still function correctly if you just add another polygon alongside the existing bounds?
Could you explain SpriteAPI? You mention custom UI panels, does that mean we will be able to create buttons/input boxes alongside these sprites, or is it display-only?
/**
* Called whenever the location or size of this UI panel changes.
* @param position
*/
void positionChanged(PositionAPI position);
/**
* alphaMult is the transparency the panel should be rendered at.
* @param alphaMult
*/
void render(float alphaMult);
/**
* @param amount in seconds.
*/
void advance(float amount);
/**
* List of input events that occurred this frame. (Almost) always includes one mouse move event.
*
* Events should be consume()d if they are acted on.
* Mouse-move events should generally not be consumed.
* The loop processing events should check to see if an event has already been consumed, and if so, skip it.
* Accessing the data of a consumed event will throw an exception.
*
* @param events
*/
void processInput(List<InputEventAPI> events);
Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of weapons being disabled by damage"or" maybe?
Anyway, does this include EMP damage?
Only indirectly, because EMP tends to disable weapons/engines when it hits.
Will low CR improve capture chances (aside from the existing mechanic of undeployable ships being auto-captured/sabataged)? There have been suggestions on making EMP increase capture chance, and with the mechanic above it seems natural to include it. :)
Well, the struggle for initial FP dominance - while interesting - also leads to a degenerate battle state where one side (usually the player's) has an overwhelming advantage that renders the rest of the battle moot. So, while I did like the mechanics leading into it, that downside also goes away.
Another option (that does involve CR mechanics directly) is to switch it around and give missile-using ships some CR back if they *didn't* fire the missiles.
Hmm, that's an interesting consequence to that idea. But - as the missile spec skill demonstrates - adding ammo to missiles is a little awkward due to such a high ammo count variance.
Another option (that does involve CR mechanics directly) is to switch it around and give missile-using ships some CR back if they *didn't* fire the missiles.
One problem with the cost for missile firing is that the optimal playstile is to not use them. This would emphasize it much more. Isn't it kinda stupid to equip my ship with something that makes me feel bad when using it?
The tactical decision now is just how much/what composition you want to deploy. You're basically betting what you think you can handle.
Can we have a bit of industry/economy thrown in please? Just a bit? Like a bone to a dog? I want a bone!
Or at least a bit of API for those modders to make a more complete campaign mode, maybe with a bit of commerce and outpost construction, etc. I mean, the industry stat' is in there... but it's not being used :(.
I hunger for commerce and industry to give purpose to my foolish vagrancy.
I don't give two craps about industry before we get exploration and multiple systems. I still remember the sense of dread from Escape Velocity and Escape Velocity Override when you are getting low on fuel and jumping into uncharted systems... so good.You stop that! Now I can't think about anything else, haha.
@Pentakill: Right; what others have said. I'll just add that I'm very much aware of the dangers of tinkering, and this is most assuredly not that. I appreciate your candor and concern, though.
Furthermore why are frigates being nerfed again? It's not like they're super powerful, they tend to die enmasse to me. It also seems like a cop-out to say stress, do cruiser and capital ship crew members somehow not suffer the same kind of stress from being in combat? I really don't see why frigates need a nerf, frigates tend to have the lower range than larger ships due to smaller slots and less of a bonus from Integrated Targeting Unit. Furthermore this means that you can't make a frigate that can last long-term in combat which waters down frigate customization.
One problem with the cost for missile firing is that the optimal playstile is to not use them. This would emphasize it much more. Isn't it kinda stupid to equip my ship with something that makes me feel bad when using it?
The tactical decision now is just how much/what composition you want to deploy. You're basically betting what you think you can handle.
How does the AI handle this? I'm guessing it's just going to deploy everything, but it would be nice if it tried to conserve its own CR in case your fleet is much smaller. You know, for future battles and such.
Can we have a bit of industry/economy thrown in please? Just a bit? Like a bone to a dog? I want a bone!
Or at least a bit of API for those modders to make a more complete campaign mode, maybe with a bit of commerce and outpost construction, etc. I mean, the industry stat' is in there... but it's not being used :(.
I hunger for commerce and industry to give purpose to my foolish vagrancy.
This. This a thousand times this.
I see the addition of BoundsAPI; would you mind adding a ShipSpriteAPI as well? :D
"SetShipSprite", provide ID of an already-loaded ship sprite :D
:D
(You know why :D)
I hope Combat Readiness isn't going to only affect you, because that's lame and waters down the mechanics as you'll never face a weakened enemy fleet.
Missiles: As someone who adores missiles more than most, I find myself on your side of the fence here because when used properly, especially with the right skills, ships, and load-outs, missiles are incredibly effective and devastating. Whether people see this as a small nerf, or perhaps a small buff, i'm not worried missiles will be going anywhere anytime soon.
...
While these are just the opinions from one of many players, feedback is always helpful and I wanted you to know there is at least one missile lover out there who's okay with the changes.
Frigates are also getting an across the board speed buff so that they can be more in their niche. Depending on how large the buff is, I suspect frigates will be significantly more deadly in this patch, not less :P. I guess we'll see.
Oh, I think I forgot to mention one thing about the role of frigates in escape-style battles. The pursuing side can choose to deploy their fighters and frigates from the left or right instead of at the bottom. That potentially brings those ships closer to the flanks of the retreating fleet and also puts them in much better position to control some of the objectives. As you might imagine, control of the Nav Buoy points can make or break an escape. On the flip side, when you're escaping, having fast escort ships to control or at least contest those is what gives larger ships a chance to get away.
One problem with the cost for missile firing is that the optimal playstile is to not use them. This would emphasize it much more. Isn't it kinda stupid to equip my ship with something that makes me feel bad when using it?Well, that's not entirely true, is it? Presumably, using the missile successfully has some benefit, too. Getting a faster kill is often more than about just saving time - you're also potentially saving damage taken by your ships.
The tactical decision now is just how much/what composition you want to deploy. You're basically betting what you think you can handle.
How does the AI handle this? I'm guessing it's just going to deploy everything, but it would be nice if it tried to conserve its own CR in case your fleet is much smaller. You know, for future battles and such.
The idea is that the AI will try to avoid over-deploying - i.e. it'll try to top what you have on the field, within reason. If it does end up over-committing, it can always "stand down" after combat to get the CR back, at the cost of letting you get away. Assuming it managed to win, that is.
Hrm, thinking on this, does this affect the pre-battle deployment? I.e., does this mean that the AI always "moves last" in pre-battle deployments and will always commit more than what you've declared, or is it processed in real time on an I-go-you-go system where when you add a ship, it adds a ship (or ships) and then waits for you to commit more, continuing to do so until there are no ships left to commit or you decide not to commit any more?
Would it be possible to have fuel alongside the supplies to be used to effect C.R.? This would give fuel actual use in the game.
Also, i assume that each frigate and fighter wing will be able to be deployed on a different side of the battlefield, so i can deploy half my fighters on the right and half on the left, is this right?
Do you still plan a blogpost about the new combat mechanics? I think they deserve more then a few lines of explanation :)
And: will missions be influenced by CR or the new combat mechanics in any way? For some of the missions very low or high CR would be plausible. Will there be multi-part missions?
Hrm, thinking on this, does this affect the pre-battle deployment? I.e., does this mean that the AI always "moves last" in pre-battle deployments and will always commit more than what you've declared, or is it processed in real time on an I-go-you-go system where when you add a ship, it adds a ship (or ships) and then waits for you to commit more, continuing to do so until there are no ships left to commit or you decide not to commit any more?
can you add Ship\Person name manager plugins (or name generation event)
static files are OK but there are TONS of runtime generators to do this job much more better then game can.
controlling ship names already possible, but name generation event will improve situation a lot.
Will this break any mods? Will I have to add anything extra?
I would assume that the inferior fleets always deploys all ships, and the superior fleet, knowing the total enemy strength, deploys that and then some. Or is there any reason for the inferior fleet to under-deploy?
Any details on the speed buff for frigates? I don't think anyone would mind getting all the numbers as they are right now ;)
That sounds a bit like asking for a difficulty setting that disables shields...I hope so :)
You'll probably be able to at least mostly disable it via mods, though.
Well, I look forward to the release, however, is there anyway to have a kind of difficulty setting that disables the C.R features?
- Player can retreat their flagship by pressing "enter" when within 2000 pixels of the retreat border and facing towards it. Retreat popup dialog is gone.
- X button in the top right corner and Alt-F4 now close the game
- Scrollbars are now draggable/clickable/etc
- Phase Skimmer will now face towards the mouse cursor when it comes out of the skim, unless there's a target set, in which case it'll point towards the target. Phase Teleporter behavior is unchanged.
- Added "shield arc" indicator to refit screen
- Increased top speed and acceleration for most frigates
- Pre-combat ship tooltips now only show essential information, can be expanded to show full information by pressing F1
- Ships traveling over their top speed (due to zero-flux coasting, for example) will automatically engage maneuvering thrusters to slow down
- Flux bar now shows some activity when the flux level is at 0 while flux is being generated and dissipated at a faster rate
Since, I think, nobody has yet, I just want to say that I love all the small stuff in the patch notes. The stuff on this list alone will get rid of most of what I find a bit annoying atm.Not to make the obligatory +1 but, my post is an obligatory +1 :)
- Player can retreat their flagship by pressing "enter" when within 2000 pixels of the retreat border and facing towards it. Retreat popup dialog is gone.
- X button in the top right corner and Alt-F4 now close the game
- Scrollbars are now draggable/clickable/etc
- Phase Skimmer will now face towards the mouse cursor when it comes out of the skim, unless there's a target set, in which case it'll point towards the target. Phase Teleporter behavior is unchanged.
- Added "shield arc" indicator to refit screen
- Increased top speed and acceleration for most frigates
- Pre-combat ship tooltips now only show essential information, can be expanded to show full information by pressing F1
- Ships traveling over their top speed (due to zero-flux coasting, for example) will automatically engage maneuvering thrusters to slow down
- Flux bar now shows some activity when the flux level is at 0 while flux is being generated and dissipated at a faster rate
Scrollbars are now draggable/clickable/etc
Oh by the way, will Objective bonuses affect frigates now? Possible even fighters?
Theres been a significate decrease it seams in regular forum members.
i remember .5 and when we hit 25 pages of "sweet cool" before any crucial discussion on day 3.
Or was it the update directly after campaghne. (not bug fix).
It makes me sad :'( .
Realism is wrong word, you shoud not use it in context of starfarer.Nope.
Currently player skill increase damage and amount of missiles, magically.
I cant see any reason why CR and crew levels can't improve same stats same way.
(Also we need more crew levels to smooth effects, maybe 5-7 levels from very poor to very good)
Just imagine - tactical nuclear charge (Reaper) manufactured by local nano assembly \ universal constructor by known bluprint.
How you going to increase its speed or damage without altering blueprint?
Answer: you cant
Right answer: with magic.
Nope.Well now, i don't think that, today, any captain of, let say, nuclear submarine, no matter how experience he is, can increase number of torpedoes. I don't know how it goes but i don't think he can come and say: "Hey put there one more torpedo." Smarter captains are better in deciding when to shoot torpedo, aka. how to use weapons efficiently. Ships are build by engineers, how, why, and because something is where it is, that is stuff that engineers decides. Captain do not know and do not need to know, they just need to know what ship can or can't do. That way they know how far they can push them.
I imagine that any commander worth his salt would modify their weapons to how they fight, therefore increasing 'skills' in missile combat means you are more experienced in using them and have changed the specifications to reflect how you fight (e.g. variants of ships).
NOONONONON! :)Nope.Well now, i don't think that, today, any captain of, let say, nuclear submarine, no matter how experience he is, can increase number of torpedoes. I don't know how it goes but i don't think he can come and say: "Hey put there one more torpedo." Smarter captains are better in deciding when to shoot torpedo, aka. how to use weapons efficiently. Ships are build by engineers, how, why, and because something is where it is, that is stuff that engineers decides. Captain do not know and do not need to know, they just need to know what ship can or can't do. That way they know how far they can push them.
I imagine that any commander worth his salt would modify their weapons to how they fight, therefore increasing 'skills' in missile combat means you are more experienced in using them and have changed the specifications to reflect how you fight (e.g. variants of ships).
Ok, i write enough, what i want to say is that i agree with RawCode. It's magic ;D
Buuuuut as for more dmg from ballistic and energy weapons i think that is ok. Better captain know where weak-spots of enemy armor is so he can tell/learn his crew how to use that against enemy so they can make more damage.
NOONONONON! :)Well one thing is tank and other thing is space ship. Try to mess around with submarine, cos submarine is closest thing to space ship that humans have with weapons on/in it. It's more complicated and have really nasty environment - space.
I believe that this is true, as for example during long wars (e.g. Vietnam,WW2, Gulf) tank commanders for example changed parts of their tank, these were not made by the engineers? They added armour plates, more supplies, more storage (FOR AMMO.....) this does happen in real life, the example about missiles changing the payload was certainly a long shot but the only explanation for more damage I could see apart form changing the launchers...
NOONONONON! :)Well one thing is tank and other thing is space ship. Try to mess around with submarine, cos submarine is closest thing to space ship that humans have with weapons on/in it. It's more complicated and have really nasty environment - space.
I believe that this is true, as for example during long wars (e.g. Vietnam,WW2, Gulf) tank commanders for example changed parts of their tank, these were not made by the engineers? They added armour plates, more supplies, more storage (FOR AMMO.....) this does happen in real life, the example about missiles changing the payload was certainly a long shot but the only explanation for more damage I could see apart form changing the launchers...
Lastly, will we have visible supply consumption for missile ammo now? Supplies only have applied to crew, fleet repair, and fleet "maintenance" (for being over limits), yet not to the expendables/consumables known as ammunition. I ask the same if ballistic weapon ammo usage will affect CR and such at some later time (if at all). I just find it kinda strange that supplies really only consist of 2 things: Food (crew) and ship components (Fleet; think armor, wiring, conduit, etc.) Apparently ammo is freely available? ::)The problem with adding supply consumption for ammo is it adds a metagame of 'Shoot as little as possible' to combat, which is not going to be particularly fun- especially when you have regenerating shields and it's easy to waste ammo. It also means a lot of frustration with the AI over ammo wastage; the AI is set to be conservative and avoid hull damage, which is good, but the cost for that is lots of wasted ammo as it doesn't press the advantage and drags fights out. So suddenly one of the AI behaviors that minimises player annoyance (less likely to throw themselves into trouble & explode) becomes a source of it.
As for stats:Well... Hmmmm... No! ;D It's not fair to compare tank armor vs 9mm pistol. All weapons in this game CAN (really, they can man) damage any ship. So it's like tank vs other tank. If you know where to shoot aka. where is armor weaker then you will make more damage against your opponent who shoot in thicker armor. Right? :D
No matter how well you at shooting gun, bullet have constant speed\weight\armor penetration.
Ever if you reached level 90 at shooting, you can't pierce heavy tanks with 9mm pistol.
Every type of ammo\damage increase from stats\crew is magic.
Magic is OK for sci-fi game.
And not, IRL you cant just rig with submarine reactor to increase it's power by 2% per level you gained from destroying other submarine.O yeah?! Yes you can man.Yes you CAN! After blasting all that submarines when you see next one your blood boils, safety protocols don't mean fart for you any more, you push your ship to the max like there is no tomorrow and cos of that you manage to squeeze that 2% or more out of it buuuuut in compare to normal usage of reactor. YEAH! ;D But then again you may blow up in process ::)
How about oval shields? because the round ones are limiting ship size and functionality by a lot. 1 extra value to set in the editor can't be the end of the world.It can ;D
well, 2 extra values, set width of collision radius and shield radius, length is already there.I know that but i don't know how hard is it to implement it in-game. I guess Alex would do that if it just that easy. He didn't put it so i guess it's more complicated than it looks. Probably it have lot's with AI. Its one thing to know where is circle boundaries but it's another thing to know where are boundaries of something that isn't circle. If you turn circle a bit left its same but if you turn oval thing a bit left it's not same. Maybe it would required much more coding for AI... Dunno. :)
Alex, do you think any other ammo-based weapons will affect CR? I'm thinking mostly of Ballistics, but there are some ammo-based Energy-DMG type weapons. (AM Blaster or Mjollnir, for example). You'd need to reload ammo based weapons between fights, no? Technically, that would affect combat readiness. I imagine you kinda don't want to touch on that yet (if at all) since that could push players towards pure, unlimited-ammo Energy-type weapons.
On the flip side, might CR eventually affect ballistic ammo count if CR is too low between fights? Speaking of which: if battle are now in phases, will ammo levels at the end of phase one reflect in phase 2? Or will ammo be restored between phases/engagements?
Lastly, will we have visible supply consumption for missile ammo now? Supplies only have applied to crew, fleet repair, and fleet "maintenance" (for being over limits), yet not to the expendables/consumables known as ammunition. I ask the same if ballistic weapon ammo usage will affect CR and such at some later time (if at all). I just find it kinda strange that supplies really only consist of 2 things: Food (crew) and ship components (Fleet; think armor, wiring, conduit, etc.) Apparently ammo is freely available? ::)
Maybe change the percentage speed bonus to a flat bonus based on hull size? Compare to, for example, unstable injector - for a slow capital ship, the skill (even maxed) adds maybe +3 top speed, versus +20 for the hull mod, while a zippy frigate gets notably more benefit (even in comparison to the increased benefit from the hull mod). And then it wouldn't get quite so silly in combination with an increase to base frigate speeds.
I might actually eliminate ammo for ballistics altogether, or just bump it up to where it doesn't matterI hope you don't remove ammo for ballistic or it will feel too arcadish
Actually... you know what might work better? Instead of increasing the limits for ballistics, lower them - and add a "regenerate ammo when at zero flux" statistic, or maybe "regenerate ammo after X seconds of not-firing", typically with fairly high values for regen rate. Thematically, this would mean, when you're not actively in combat you can resupply their magazines from stores. And then the autoloader ship system? The one that increases fire rate on ballistics? Have it activate ammo regeneration, too, giving ships with it both increased firepower & increased longevity.
Actually... you know what might work better? Instead of increasing the limits for ballistics, lower them - and add a "regenerate ammo when at zero flux" statistic, or maybe "regenerate ammo after X seconds of not-firing", typically with fairly high values for regen rate. Thematically, this would mean, when you're not actively in combat you can resupply their magazines from stores. And then the autoloader ship system? The one that increases fire rate on ballistics? Have it activate ammo regeneration, too, giving ships with it both increased firepower & increased longevity.Probably one of the best ideas I've heard regarding weapons. This way, it makes it so you can't just endlessly spam low-flux kinetic weapons, while at the same time, making it so they aren't totally useless after they run out of ammo.
But if you don't have to worry about ammo counts at ALL then you'll just spam it all the time and game the AI that way. No one likes flying into a constant stream of death.Alex, do you think any other ammo-based weapons will affect CR? I'm thinking mostly of Ballistics, but there are some ammo-based Energy-DMG type weapons. (AM Blaster or Mjollnir, for example). You'd need to reload ammo based weapons between fights, no? Technically, that would affect combat readiness. I imagine you kinda don't want to touch on that yet (if at all) since that could push players towards pure, unlimited-ammo Energy-type weapons.
Probably not. Missiles are different in that they're both low-ammo and not generally a primary weapon type. For ballistics, ammo is there more for feel than mechanical reasons. I might actually eliminate ammo for ballistics altogether, or just bump it up to where it doesn't matter. Limited ammo on primary weapons creates some undesirable dynamics, such as waiting out the AI's ammo, aforementioned issues with what the desired AI behavior is (cautious to avoid damage vs aggressive to make efficient use of ammo), etc.
Ideally, I'd want a solution that doesn't involve adding yet another button for the player to remember, but still has the feel of "ballistic ships have limited combat windows, but can back off and restock munitions when they aren't actively fighting."Well maybe all ballistic weapon could have reload timer. When you run down your ammo (and only then) it's kicks in. Weapon is inactive for XX time and that time is used to, well, reload ammo :) So it's something that you can't control and goes automatic.
Alex, do you think any other ammo-based weapons will affect CR? I'm thinking mostly of Ballistics, but there are some ammo-based Energy-DMG type weapons. (AM Blaster or Mjollnir, for example). You'd need to reload ammo based weapons between fights, no? Technically, that would affect combat readiness. I imagine you kinda don't want to touch on that yet (if at all) since that could push players towards pure, unlimited-ammo Energy-type weapons.
Probably not. Missiles are different in that they're both low-ammo and not generally a primary weapon type. For ballistics, ammo is there more for feel than mechanical reasons. I might actually eliminate ammo for ballistics altogether, or just bump it up to where it doesn't matter. Limited ammo on primary weapons creates some undesirable dynamics, such as waiting out the AI's ammo, aforementioned issues with what the desired AI behavior is (cautious to avoid damage vs aggressive to make efficient use of ammo), etc.
On the flip side, might CR eventually affect ballistic ammo count if CR is too low between fights? Speaking of which: if battle are now in phases, will ammo levels at the end of phase one reflect in phase 2? Or will ammo be restored between phases/engagements?
No, for the same reasons - not the kind of dynamics I'd want to encourage. All ammo is reloaded between phases.
Lastly, will we have visible supply consumption for missile ammo now? Supplies only have applied to crew, fleet repair, and fleet "maintenance" (for being over limits), yet not to the expendables/consumables known as ammunition. I ask the same if ballistic weapon ammo usage will affect CR and such at some later time (if at all). I just find it kinda strange that supplies really only consist of 2 things: Food (crew) and ship components (Fleet; think armor, wiring, conduit, etc.) Apparently ammo is freely available? ::)
At the moment, regaining CR has a slight supply cost associated with it, and ships have a per-hull maintenance cost, so I'd look at ammo as being one of those.
Actually... you know what might work better? Instead of increasing the limits for ballistics, lower them - and add a "regenerate ammo when at zero flux" statistic, or maybe "regenerate ammo after X seconds of not-firing", typically with fairly high values for regen rate. Thematically, this would mean, when you're not actively in combat you can resupply their magazines from stores.
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?Oh, interesting idea! Will keep it in mind.
But if you don't have to worry about ammo counts at ALL then you'll just spam it all the time and game the AI that way. No one likes flying into a constant stream of death.
I believe the balancing of Ballistic vs Energy was that Ballistics were flux efficient with limited ammo; Energy were Flux-costly but didn't have to worry about ammo limits (in most cases).
Interesting discussion, maybe someone can start a thread over in Suggestions so we can continue it?
Interesting discussion, maybe someone can start a thread over in Suggestions so we can continue it?I believe the balancing of Ballistic vs Energy was that Ballistics were flux efficient with limited ammo; Energy were Flux-costly but didn't have to worry about ammo limits (in most cases).
Just wanted to make a note here: ammo isn't a good balancing factor because it doesn't operate on the same timescale, at least when the count is high enough that it's meant to last through several fights. The general balancing of energy vs ballistic is "versatile and more costly" vs "more efficient but more specialized" (barring beams and other exceptions). Ammo *is* a balancing factor for missiles, though.
Alex, do you think any other ammo-based weapons will affect CR? I'm thinking mostly of Ballistics, but there are some ammo-based Energy-DMG type weapons. (AM Blaster or Mjollnir, for example). You'd need to reload ammo based weapons between fights, no? Technically, that would affect combat readiness. I imagine you kinda don't want to touch on that yet (if at all) since that could push players towards pure, unlimited-ammo Energy-type weapons.
Probably not. Missiles are different in that they're both low-ammo and not generally a primary weapon type. For ballistics, ammo is there more for feel than mechanical reasons. I might actually eliminate ammo for ballistics altogether, or just bump it up to where it doesn't matter. Limited ammo on primary weapons creates some undesirable dynamics, such as waiting out the AI's ammo, aforementioned issues with what the desired AI behavior is (cautious to avoid damage vs aggressive to make efficient use of ammo), etc.
I think instead of degrees, it should be in radians. Radians are more awesome. I am however torn on if I want actual ratios of pi or just numbers though. Both have their benefits.
Hooo boy. Grads, let's just compromise and use grads.YES Lets use them! :P (for anyone without a sarcasm gland, this is sarcasm, not directed at alex though)
On a last note, has using hull damage as a direct % of ship CR been looked at? I would think having half your ship destroyed would be more of a deciding factor of its combat readiness compared to being in combat for a few hours.I'd argue against that as it's textbook death spiral. The more damaged your ship gets, the less able you are to fight back, the more damaged you get... that's already in to an extent as losing ships degrades your fleet performance, but that's a fairly major event that really signals you to reassess the fight. Instead, gradual CR reduction with damage could lead to fights getting decided by the first salvo then dragging out as you wail on an opponent who poses increasingly little threat (or visa versa).
On a last note, has using hull damage as a direct % of ship CR been looked at? I would think having half your ship destroyed would be more of a deciding factor of its combat readiness compared to being in combat for a few hours.
I don't have any suggestions but this is very exciting stuff on the horizon. I don't post often but I'm impressed with the development team's work. Thanks.
My question is will this limit options to preventing retreats. Sometimes maybe I will not always want to engage in a chase scene and may want to invest in something else. For example tractor beams,gravity wells, or some type of performance damaging weapons or systems. Will frigates and the chase scene be the only option for the game?
My first thought on seeing the post was "hey, spambot!" Was a nice surprise to find out otherwise, and thanks :)
Control group management can now be done in the fleet deployment dialog
Decorative, background parallaxing planet added to campaign battle depending on where the battle takes place
Impressed with the additional campaign modding options. Very good work - does this pave the way for communication actually impacting the gameplay? Does this mean we can write a whole host of responses for a faction, or at least have random strings upon hailing? I'm a bit hazy right now and not that good at visualizing implications.
Hope you haven't forgotten about additive blended decorative weapons. ;D
Decorative, background parallaxing planet added to campaign battle depending on where the battle takes place
Nice, do they have the absolute (small) or relative (to the ships, big) same size as in the campaign? Or something in between?
- ModPlugin now has the following methods:
- void onApplicationLoad() throws Exception;
- void onNewGame();
- void onEnabled(boolean wasEnabledBefore);
- void onGameLoad();
- void beforeGameSave();
- void afterGameSave();
- Mods can add things to existing games (using the "onEnabled" method)
Exiting mid-battle:Is there something in the UI that lets you know that the enemy is in full retreat? Sometimes there is a small ship outside of your viewing range, and it would nice to know in this situation that you could exit the battle without wasting time trying to find the ship and chase them down.
Finishes the battle as a victory if the enemy is in full retreat
Once this patch comes out Starsector should gofor steam Greenlight.Hi there! :)
"Guys - I appreciate the thought, but I really don't feel like Starsector is ready for this kind of exposure. Please don't do anything on my behalf to make that happen - I think it could end up causing serious problems, both for the development of the game, the community, and, indeed, my mental health :) "
Exiting mid-battle:Is there something in the UI that lets you know that the enemy is in full retreat? Sometimes there is a small ship outside of your viewing range, and it would nice to know in this situation that you could exit the battle without wasting time trying to find the ship and chase them down.
Finishes the battle as a victory if the enemy is in full retreat
can the Decorative background be disabled durning battles ?
i got rather slow/weak PC so i have to save as many memory i can ( currently i disable V-sync ;p)
A little SMF easter egg, when the posts are at 1337. Back on topic, please :)Thanks Alex, I thought my screen was bugging out or something else.... and I just saw the mod can add stuff to existing games function!!!! oh that is really helpful, thank you SOOOO very much for putting that in :)
can the Decorative background be disabled durning battles ?
i got rather slow/weak PC so i have to save as many memory i can ( currently i disable V-sync ;p)
No, but it's not difficult to mod out. It's not exactly a performance hog, though - no more so than a planet in the current missions.
& a question: will there be any graphic/resolution option in full game ?
Missions only: removed random post-battle capture
I hope to see substantive improvements to the actual game in a coming update.
I wish your attacks actually meant something. If I raid the pirates faction for 50 battles in a row, the faction itself ought to be affected somehow.
As a programmer myself, I know that scripting this kind of stuff is not at all difficult. It's a lot easier than some of the stuff the game already does.
Missions only: removed random post-battle captureSooooo.....What missions are we talking about Alex? :)
Speaking of that, are there new graphical elements you really want to implement in the polish phase of the game? I think the game currently is a very good example of how cohesive art design and gamefeel can carry the game on its own without the need for visual fluff. Even so, small additions like these that work within the current scope of the graphics engine are very effective at aiding immersion.
One thing I personally would love to see eventually is a gradual breakup and explosion of shipwrecks that actually become destroyed rather than merely disabled, like in Escape Velocity, along with flying, red-hot debris...
What's a spam bot? Some awesome Hull Mod I haven't discovered yet??I'm sensing your a troll or something?
No, that's alright. Context (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5813.msg93121#msg93121).
@lindsay lohan: A spambot is a program that automatically posts advertisement in the forum, they sometimes have names of VIPs like you do.
CodeModPlugin now has the following methods:
void onApplicationLoad() throws Exception;
void onNewGame();
void onEnabled(boolean wasEnabledBefore);
void onGameLoad();
void beforeGameSave();
void afterGameSave();
Just wanna check something:
Alex if player FP maxed out fleet collide with SDF how much FP worth of ships will be in battlefield?
now everything we need on current stage is ability to save arbitary data into savegame
Oddly enough, added that yesterday.
Have you done any testing with the phase frigates since the frigate changes? Do them seem any better/worse?
Unless you mean we can now change the algorithm behind all AI vs AI battles (which would be awesome), aren't these mutually exclusive?...
- "Second in command" option (autoresolve) no longer available to the player (possibly a temporary measure, depending on things)
- Autoresolve algorithm changed, is now fully moddable
Added SectorAPI.getPersistentData(), used for saving arbitrary data in the savegameExcellent, looking forward to this addition. :) Can you reveal how it will work? What about type-safety, etc?[/list]
Unless you mean we can now change the algorithm behind all AI vs AI battles (which would be awesome), aren't these mutually exclusive?...
- "Second in command" option (autoresolve) no longer available to the player (possibly a temporary measure, depending on things)
- Autoresolve algorithm changed, is now fully moddable
QuoteAdded SectorAPI.getPersistentData(), used for saving arbitrary data in the savegameAwesome, can you reveal how this will work? :)[/list]
Map<String, Object> getPersistentData();So, that's pretty much all there is to it. That map gets serialized (using XStream), so you don't need to do anything at all - in terms of serialization code - to make it work. You can implement readResolve()/writeReplace() methods if you've got any special requirements on that front, and you could flag things as transient so they aren't saved. Actually, you can do that for other stuff that winds up in the save game, too, like spawn points.
So, is auto-resolve completely gone now? I can see it getting very tedious when trying to destroy lower-level fleets, or perhaps that's what you're trying to discourage players from doing. If that's the case, I'd suggest increasing the amount of XP gained from battles, since the player now has to fight them all in real-time. Or maybe making the maps for huge player fleets vs really small AI fleets significantly smaller, so engagements are quicker.
The method is:Map<String, Object> getPersistentData();So, that's pretty much all there is to it. That map gets serialized (using XStream), so you don't need to do anything at all - in terms of serialization code - to make it work. You can implement readResolve()/writeReplace() methods if you've got any special requirements on that front, and you could flag things as transient so they aren't saved. Actually, you can do that for other stuff that winds up in the save game, too, like spawn points.
Is there no type safety, then? If it would help, I wrote a type-safe persistent data storage class using generics for use in my personal mods. The code for that is here (https://bitbucket.org/LazyWizard/aci/src/a942151cf424e2f34573d2830f3672193c40319a/org/lazywizard/aci/managers/SavedDataManager.java?at=default), if you would be interested. I believe the methods will work even when called from Janino-compiled scripts (though I haven't tested it thoroughly).
Also - with the full understanding that the features are subject to change - would it be possible to see the current version of Starsector's API? I know you've mentioned elsewhere that you've made some significant additions to it, so it would be nice to see what all is new before making more requests.
That's assuming that there's nothing secret in the API that you don't want to reveal yet (which is why I waited to ask until after a new patch notes appeared :)).
Any new thoughts on fighter changes you feel comfortable sharing? Just trying to get a feel for how they'll play out next patch.
Fleet points removed from the campaign (remain as "deployment points" in combat)So is the leadership tree a lot more useless now?
--- snip ---
Added SectorAPI.getPersistentData(), used for saving arbitrary data in the savegame
Expanded ShipVariantAPI. Combined with FleetMemberAPI.setVariant(), should be enough to allow mods to dynamically create custom variants.
--- snip ---
Fleet points removed from the campaign (remain as "deployment points" in combat)So is the leadership tree a lot more useless now?
EDIT: Oh, and would you mind doing something like a blog post to explain this new logistic system? I'm a little confused...
EDIT 2: And I'm kinda happy to see the supply cost increase. It actually makes them meaningful, and every hit you take in combat that much more painful.
The UI stuff also looks really interesting.
Goal is to make boarding a way to acquire new types ships rather than to acquire *more* ships, thus the risks associated with boarding are very high - on average, should be more than the cost to buy the same ship
Sensor Array now provides a 10% damage bonus to all weapons (was: 25% range bonus)
Yeah, thats what i first thought as well. I'm wondering, because alex said that, does it mean that your chance of successful boarding action decreases after every successful boarding of the one type of ship?QuoteGoal is to make boarding a way to acquire new types ships rather than to acquire *more* ships, thus the risks associated with boarding are very high - on average, should be more than the cost to buy the same ship
This is... interesting. Does this imply that once you have a type of ship you will be able to reproduce it? Or am I reading into things too much?
"Second in command" option (autoresolve) no longer available to the player (possibly a temporary measure, depending on things)+
Autoresolve algorithm changed, is now fully moddable
New boarding mechanics:
On the one hand, yeah, it'd be a pain to swap to another ship [every time your flagship has low CR]. On the other hand, having your flagship be in bad shape is a tactical consideration that may not warrant having a free pass out of. Hmm. I'll give it some thought. Might just make the first transfer command (if the flagship isn't on the field) instant and see how that feels.
Yep, thinking about doing that soon. Made sense to put out the patch notes first, though, so that there's something in them that wasn't already talked about in detail :)
Changes as of May 24, 2013
- Reinvented Starsector.
- That is all.
New boarding mechanics:
Goal is to make boarding a way to acquire new types ships rather than to acquire *more* ships, thus the risks associated with boarding are very high - on average, should be more than the cost to buy the same ship
Boarding takes place as a series of choices in the new encounter dialog
Both marines and crew can be used to board, marines are much more effective
At the end of the encounter, one of the losing side's ships disabled in any of the engagements has a chance to be repaired by its crew. The winning side has a number of options:
Board it: requires picking a number of combat-ready ships for the job - only the crew capacity of these may be used for boarding), and one of:
Hard dock: best chance of success, high chance of losing ALL ships in the boarding action to a self-destruct. As harsh as it sounds.
Launch assault teams from a distance: low chance of success, requires more marines to succeed, high chance of enemy escaping
Engage with nearby ships: enemy ship will either be disabled, destroyed, or manage to escape
Let it go: enemy ship will be able to escape
If the player loses a battle, similar mechanics for the AI kick in (though at this point it will always pick the "engage" option)
Increased marine cost 10x
Fighter wings can not be boarded
Question about logistics: Say I'm running a fleet at near max logistics capacity, and I get in a fight. All of a sudden I have CR/repairs supply consumption added. If this pushes me over my max logistics, do those repairs just not happen? Or does that start the accident chance? (And is that why the player can adjust the repair rate, so they can control the risk levels?)
Ships at maximum CR only consume 10% of the maintenance cost in supplies, but the full value is counted against the logistics rating
QuoteSensor Array now provides a 10% damage bonus to all weapons (was: 25% range bonus)
Ah man, now I have to choose between nav arrays and sensor arrays. ;) Do bonuses apply to frigates and fighters again now that they are CR limited, btw?
Yeah, thats what i first thought as well. I'm wondering, because alex said that, does it mean that your chance of successful boarding action decreases after every successful boarding of the one type of ship?QuoteGoal is to make boarding a way to acquire new types ships rather than to acquire *more* ships, thus the risks associated with boarding are very high - on average, should be more than the cost to buy the same ship
This is... interesting. Does this imply that once you have a type of ship you will be able to reproduce it? Or am I reading into things too much?
Oh, this is most interesting. Logistics seems to be another one of those clever mechanics, I can't wrap my head around it fully either. Looking forward to the blogpost.
I assume you did just not mention all the old mechanics that will be gone to make room for the new ones? Like determining crew level with ship position and manually suspending repairs on a ship?
Any new thoughts on the ability to influence boarding chance during combat? Is that of of the window (again)?
Oh, and something I missed in the notes:On the one hand, yeah, it'd be a pain to swap to another ship [every time your flagship has low CR]. On the other hand, having your flagship be in bad shape is a tactical consideration that may not warrant having a free pass out of. Hmm. I'll give it some thought. Might just make the first transfer command (if the flagship isn't on the field) instant and see how that feels.
Have you tried it, will it be like this?
Don't know how other's see it, but I prefer hearing about big new features first in form of a blogpost. A text format explaining a mechanic, giving reasons and talking about iterations is much more exiting to read than bullet points. To try and split the excitement between those surrounding factors and the inherent "wow, new feature" (which is now in the patchnotes) is, in my opinion, detrimental to the overall fascination. I for one wouldn't mind if the patch notes were just a comprehensive list, introducing only minor new things and changes.
... lots of stuff ...
You might want to read the blogpost about the new boarding mechanic (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/04/08/fleet-encounter-mechanics-part-2/), scroll to the third headline. In the corresponding forum thread (link at the bottom of the blogpost) everything has been discussed in detail.
Your idea with the shuttles is by the way the same as "launch assault team".
wouldn't you just be camping within range of it so that if it does repair the engines you can just disable it again? That's what emp weapons are for, right (I always carry a few on my ships, and even then, you could just fire a few shots into the engines of the ship from any weapon and it would do the trick...)
why does it have to be hard to capture something?
why does it have to be hard to capture something?
I guess you want to know why it is hard gameplay-wise: Because otherwise it's a money-printing machine.
Gameplay of a similar game, X2: You sit outside a pirate base and start capturing ships. If you know what you do, you get around 2-3 ships every 10 minutes. So if you capture 4 ships after around 15 minutes, each with 50% hull remaining, you captured enough to buy a new heavy fighter (I'd compare it to a destroyer in Starsector). And that's without your victims' cargo.
If the current idea is implemented, you will only try to capture ships you actually want. For example, it's very hard to get the Astral. So if you want one, you should expect to lose some ships in the process.
Now FP are gone, is there another limiting factor on high-tech ships? They generally have lower HP (so lower repair costs) and lower crew counts than the low-tech ones so that'd suggest that they're cheaper to keep and run than the low-tech ones. Is that how it is and the limiting factor for them in the campaign proper is going to be the difficulty acquiring them, or is there a modifier for them that alters supply costs, or do they have base upkeeps separate from crew costs, or are they all subject to CR degradation in-combat like frigates or is it something else entirely?
Now FP are gone, is there another limiting factor on high-tech ships? They generally have lower HP (so lower repair costs) and lower crew counts than the low-tech ones so that'd suggest that they're cheaper to keep and run than the low-tech ones. Is that how it is and the limiting factor for them in the campaign proper is going to be the difficulty acquiring them, or is there a modifier for them that alters supply costs, or do they have base upkeeps separate from crew costs, or are they all subject to CR degradation in-combat like frigates or is it something else entirely?
so now instead of being limited on how many ship you can cruise the sector with, you're limited on how many ship you can send into combat instead while being able to have a bigger fleet.
Ah, thanks. Looking forwards to the blog post!Now FP are gone, is there another limiting factor on high-tech ships? They generally have lower HP (so lower repair costs) and lower crew counts than the low-tech ones so that'd suggest that they're cheaper to keep and run than the low-tech ones. Is that how it is and the limiting factor for them in the campaign proper is going to be the difficulty acquiring them, or is there a modifier for them that alters supply costs, or do they have base upkeeps separate from crew costs, or are they all subject to CR degradation in-combat like frigates or is it something else entirely?Ships now have maintenance costs, in supplies per day. Repair costs are also not tied to HP, so high tech ships are actually more expensive on both counts. They also tend to cost considerably more CR per deployment.
Not exactly true, due to aforementioned maintenance costs, though you have other means to work around them and there's more flexibility in going over. More on that in a blog post that I'm currently writing :)
- Supplies cost increased 20x
- Increased marine cost 10x
Is the supply consumption as usual or has it been changed?
And marines being that expensive breaks immersion a bit. 7 soldiers cost almost more than 4 fighters that are capable of flying in space, not to mention are armed with heavy weapons. Would be better if you renamed them to Marine Squad or something, otherwise you get the impression they're individual soldiers.
All I really want right now is dynamic commodities, please implement this by next versionThat would be cool, but I'd like to see more solar system features, dynamic faction status, and more gameplay features!
Is the supply consumption as usual or has it been changed?
Changed, since there was no ship maintenance before. Repair costs are also different (explicitly set per-ship), though not necessarily higher.And marines being that expensive breaks immersion a bit. 7 soldiers cost almost more than 4 fighters that are capable of flying in space, not to mention are armed with heavy weapons. Would be better if you renamed them to Marine Squad or something, otherwise you get the impression they're individual soldiers.
I can easily see powered armor being that expensive. It may be smaller than a fighter, but it's not unreasonable that it'd be much more complex/expensive. I also wouldn't put too much stock in the current ship/fighter prices, they're a bit off the wall.
Take a look at it from EVE's standpoint: You don't really capture disabled ships (to my limited knowledge; I didn't really play all too much) but you can salvage a LOT of things from them that are just as valuable if not 10x more valuable than the ship itself.
I think the progression speed is good right now for the amount of content, but you reduced income (capturing ships isn't a viable income source) and increased expenses (supplies cost more) in this patch - do you have anything to balance the slower progression? It it's in the patch notes, sorry, but I don't remember seeing anything.
If anything, in the currently-released version 1) the progression is too fast and 2) the early stages of it are more fun. Something where you're just barely getting by and advancing is more difficult wouldn't be a bad thing.
In any event, I'm not too concerned about the speed of the progression at this point. Any real effort put into that now is mostly wasted, though I'll certainly take a good look at it before making the release.
My other concern was is adding a damage buff really a good trade off for the range buff?(this may be me just missin my former builds which used the range buff. But it still feels like and awkward trade off.)
Is there any way we can find out the realese date of this update
How much of the coding is already done?
For the whole update? Can't really estimate, though it's definitely winding down. For the stuff in the blog post, it's all functional, but the UI is very much WIP. You may have noticed a lack of screenshots; that's why.
in the currently-released version 1) the progression is too fast and 2) the early stages of it are more fun.
the capitol is a building in Washington, D.C
it promises to be one of the best space games ever (hence, one of the best games ever !). Terrific work, hope this will go on well.
Quoteit promises to be one of the best space games ever (hence, one of the best games ever !). Terrific work, hope this will go on well.
True, this game has the potential to become huge, if we are lucky we might even see Starsector II with ships in 3D. ;D
Well I for one am not sure i like the new boarding mechanics.
Well I for one am not sure i like the new boarding mechanics.And I remember X^3:TC where boarding suddenly became almost impossible without investing millions of credits and several days IRL. It was incredibly fun, I planned an operation "capture some random Xenon destroyer" for a week, and lost about three hundred times the value of abovementioned destroyer, but I got it! And I flew it proudly since.
The Conquest was likely undermanned, and as such the Conquest's "fleet" had "no combat-ready ships". Which typically means immediate surrender or sabotage of the undermanned ship(s).
Well I for one am not sure i like the new boarding mechanics.And I remember X^3:TC where boarding suddenly became almost impossible without investing millions of credits and several days IRL. It was incredibly fun, I planned an operation "capture some random Xenon destroyer" for a week, and lost about three hundred times the value of abovementioned destroyer, but I got it! And I flew it proudly since.
Supposedly, there is a tactic to capping ships in X3 that involves displaying overwhelming firepower. Basically, kill the ship so fast that the pilot panics and bails. That's the general idea, with out taking the morale of the pilot into account. I find it odd how you can even capture Xenon ships. Aren't they AI? What, do they just have a NOPE.exe tucked away in their systems that makes them shutdown? What if it woke up again? Suddenly, crazed Xenon ship bent on destroying everything in the middle of your precious supply trains.
OT: The changes in boarding were necessary, it became far too easy to cap and start printing money.
My other concern was is adding a damage buff really a good trade off for the range buff?(this may be me just missin my former builds which used the range buff. But it still feels like and awkward trade off.)
And although it was rather thrilling the first couple times, after a while I felt guilty for being so amazing. The real jackpot used to be when you were able to find an AI fleet limping around ... you could make his fleet surrender, and assimilate all of the ships. Shipgasm.
So, is auto-resolve completely gone now?Yeah.
It's a simple case of range being the by far most powerful stat for weapons and that that beacon was simply way too strong and was now nerfed to "only" provide a damage buff (which is still good, but not end-all like the range buff was).
So...how exactly are we supposed to approach winning the campaign, when almost every reliable way of making credits is less effective, and supplies cost an arm and a leg? ???
My other concern was is adding a damage buff really a good trade off for the range buff?(this may be me just missin my former builds which used the range buff. But it still feels like and awkward trade off.)
It's a simple case of range being the by far most powerful stat for weapons and that that beacon was simply way too strong and was now nerfed to "only" provide a damage buff (which is still good, but not end-all like the range buff was).
Also, some custom weapons from mods behaved really awkward when their range was artifically extended beyond what the modder had intended, so that may also have influenced this decision.
So, is auto-resolve completely gone now?Yeah.
So, what happens if I hit escape during a battle? Is there a way to shut down the game during a fight?It's a simple case of range being the by far most powerful stat for weapons and that that beacon was simply way too strong and was now nerfed to "only" provide a damage buff (which is still good, but not end-all like the range buff was).
I wouldn't say that range is more powerful than damage. It can be, if it makes the difference between outranging the opponent or not. But if the difference was dramatic before, a percentage bonus often has no influence whatsoever. A damage bonus is more universal useful.So...how exactly are we supposed to approach winning the campaign, when almost every reliable way of making credits is less effective, and supplies cost an arm and a leg? ???
Do you find it exceedingly difficult at the moment? Maybe while you have only your starting ship, but once you grow it is all smooth sailing. Usually you have much more money than you can spend within a few hours. I had much more fun with self-imposed limitations like "don't buy anything at stations".
So, is auto-resolve completely gone now?Yeah.
So, what happens if I hit escape during a battle? Is there a way to shut down the game during a fight?
Really, even after all this talk, it's possible that .6 could be balanced perfectly, and I'm just whinning uselessly. I just like winning at things I do, is that so bad? :P
Negro needs his spaceship fix.
Negro needs his spaceship fix.
Oh, he wasn't going anywhere. Just a turn of phrase.Negro needs his spaceship fix.
Don't go there.
@Silver Silence: All I can say is wait and see how it turns out. The scenarios you describe are implausible. I.E. a pair of Hounds wouldn't choose to engage a capital ship, and if you somehow managed to force the fight, you'd probably want to use a lighter ship instead of deploying a battleship/battlecruiser and taking the CR hit for little benefit.Well, a Lasher, 1-2 Hounds and maybe a couple Talon or Piranha wings. FP-wise, the same weight as something like a Conquest, thus why I get the engagement. In terms of combat proficiency, not in remotely the same leagues.
Using autopilot doesn't play into this, if you're trying to finish a fight quickly I doubt you'd be using that in the first place.
Also, seriously - paragraphs, please :)Sorry, I couldn't figure out where to put a break because it was all on the same topic, aside from the Ascendancy storytime.
Huh. You know, I'm of the completely opposite perspective: I saw the range bonus as nice, but the speed bonus to be about 10 times more useful. It doesn't matter if the opponent has you outranged if you can hop in and out at will? Different playstyles I guess.That only works to an extent, though- a +25 might make your cruiser able to control engagement with their cruisers, but it won't help you against destroyers or frigates. It also won't help destroyers against fighter craft or missiles, whereas a 25% range boost to all PD suddenly makes inter-fleet PD coverage more reliable. More so than a flat +10% damage boost, because with short-range PD you're effectively keeping 1.1 guns trained on the fighter wing, rather than 3 (yours, and the PD from the ships either side of you).
Negro needs his spaceship fix.
At the point you acquire your first capital of almost any kind, you can generally let the AI faceroll small fleets with almost any set up.
As for the Sensor Arrays, I think I still prefer the ranged bonuses to damage. Having two unskilled ships, the one with the longer range will typically win against the other because the former can start putting pressure on the other ship first. If you're just maneuvering into range and their first wave of Hellbores and Gauss Cannons and the like has already pushed you to 20-40% your max flux, that's a whole lot less time you get to spend firing on them.
I do gear for it. Heavy Maulers, Gauss Cannons, HVDs, Railguns, HILS, Tach Lances, all weapons typically mounted on my ships. Though right now, in the Fairy mod, I'm just using Guardian PD with 750 range, but a terrifying 2000 DPS and 600 maintained DPS after the charges are spent. And I have 3 of them. Hounds get annihilated so fast that their wrecks often smash into me at full speed because they died without a chance to maneuver. I thought the Autopulses with 1200 range in this mod were cool, HA. -HA-.
I hate the fact that auto resolve is removed so much that i'm simply just not going to update... ever... if there is a logical reason behind removing it, i'd sure as hell would like to hear it.
The idea is that even when you have a big fleet size advantage, you still don't want to just deploy all and steamroll, because of associated CR loss and supply costs. It's hard to envision the role autoresolve can play in that environment; you'd possibly need to tell it what you want to use, what you don't, how many ships it's ok to use, etc. At that point you might as well play it out. If you're "grinding" low-level fleets for money/XP, you wouldn't want to use it anyway. Either you'd end up with too many losses, or too many expenses.
Well, a Lasher, 1-2 Hounds and maybe a couple Talon or Piranha wings. FP-wise, the same weight as something like a Conquest, thus why I get the engagement. In terms of combat proficiency, not in remotely the same leagues.
What I'd like you to take from that is that maybe keep autoresolve if you want to end combat early
It's fine if you make autoresolve universally worse than manually fighting if it lets you skip trivial battles (although I'll be annoyed if one of my ships gets heavily damaged or destroyed needlessly like that).
You could make it so that you can't autoresolve escape sequences if your primary concern is using autoresolve to catch speedy ships, and lower autoresolve's odds of catching speedy ships when they try to escape.
What happens now is you can end it early - with a win - once all the enemy ships are retreating. There's a message to let you know when this is happening.
... and that game has full on newtonian physics and full 3d battlefields ...
Well, autoresolve seems like a tricky subject, so I'll trust your opinion. But I'm glad if any perspective I can offer helps at all =)
This is how SotS does it, which leads to problems like missiles being more effective in autoresolve as PD has fewer chances to hit them.... and that game has full on newtonian physics and full 3d battlefields ...(Even if we decide to increase the simulation step size, I don't think it'd do enough. At the point where it would, we're talking about missing collisions and seriously affecting the fidelity of the simulation in other ways. Really, it's not even practical with high-end hardware - at best we'd be talking something like 30 seconds for a decent-sized battle.)
That said, I definitely want to hear what you guys think. Are there cases where you'd want to use it that I didn't cover in the above?
This is how SotS does it, which leads to problems like missiles being more effective in autoresolve as PD has fewer chances to hit them.... and that game has full on newtonian physics and full 3d battlefields ...(Even if we decide to increase the simulation step size, I don't think it'd do enough. At the point where it would, we're talking about missing collisions and seriously affecting the fidelity of the simulation in other ways. Really, it's not even practical with high-end hardware - at best we'd be talking something like 30 seconds for a decent-sized battle.)
Plus... SotS2 has suffered from huge performance and stability issues since day 1, and is no exemplar of game design either. Not really something to use as a target.
To expand on what I said before, for me the only real reason to miss AR would be the forced switch out of the campaign layer. The only thing I can really compare it with is the Total War series. First I have to say that I absolutely love the battle system in those games, I would buy them just for it (same with Sector). But they take time and a lot of concentration. The same goes for the campaign layer, where I have to plan much more long-term. So when I'm busy planning ahead (invasion of Spain, marriage of my daughter, assassination of the pope), the last thing I need is to be completely interrupted in my thoughts by a skirmish against some rebels. I autoresolve in these cases, even at the price of losses.
Moving on to Starsector, though: considering an inferior enemy should decide to flee, the only time that'll come into play is either in an escape-style battle or if the enemy fleet overestimates its capabilities *compared to the outcome autoresolve would create*. The latter is more of an AI problem, and is largely resolved in 0.6a.
im stuck where is the download link for the new patches i cant find them and im not getting emails for the updates
If you meanOh!! "NEW" patches...lol. and here i thought i was being helpful, and stuff. :(StarfarerStarsector 0.6, you may have missed the "(In Development)" part of the thread title. It's not out yet, buddy. As for 0.54a, you can grab that by looking through the blog and going back a couple months.
What I'd like you to take from that is that maybe keep autoresolve if you want to end combat early
What happens now is you can end it early - with a win - once all the enemy ships are retreating. There's a message to let you know when this is happening.It's fine if you make autoresolve universally worse than manually fighting if it lets you skip trivial battles (although I'll be annoyed if one of my ships gets heavily damaged or destroyed needlessly like that).
The problem I see there is, again, we're either in 1) autoresolve will handle it poorly because it looks more even on paper than it is or 2) they're trying to get away, so you can skip it already.You could make it so that you can't autoresolve escape sequences if your primary concern is using autoresolve to catch speedy ships, and lower autoresolve's odds of catching speedy ships when they try to escape.
Hmm. I'm starting to think that "catch a bunch of stuff that's running away" might be the only case left where it's really useful. It's almost a given that you've got vastly superior forces, and it seems more feasible to tune it to be really bad at catching ships - though not utterly terrible - while disallowing a loss.
Though there's still the CR issue there. Yeah, you could have "what the 2nd in command gets to deploy" selection stage... hmm. I'd considered that and thought it a bit of a hassle, but maybe that idea is worth another look. Then you could base the amount of stuff captured on how much stuff you allowed to be deployed.
Yeah, I think that could work. You take out the unpleasant randomness of losing a battle because of it, and have an inefficient shortcut to a potentially bothersome task of chasing down a bunch of stuff. Though those battles actually tend to be a fun change of pace, especially when the enemy has a decent amount of escorts and they use them to delay/escort the fleeing ships.
You'd probably still end up with the occasional "how'd that lone Atlas get away from 3 Tempests", but I suppose that's the breaks when you trust the 2nd in command.
What I'd like you to take from that is that maybe keep autoresolve if you want to end combat early
What happens now is you can end it early - with a win - once all the enemy ships are retreating. There's a message to let you know when this is happening.It's fine if you make autoresolve universally worse than manually fighting if it lets you skip trivial battles (although I'll be annoyed if one of my ships gets heavily damaged or destroyed needlessly like that).
The problem I see there is, again, we're either in 1) autoresolve will handle it poorly because it looks more even on paper than it is or 2) they're trying to get away, so you can skip it already.You could make it so that you can't autoresolve escape sequences if your primary concern is using autoresolve to catch speedy ships, and lower autoresolve's odds of catching speedy ships when they try to escape.
Hmm. I'm starting to think that "catch a bunch of stuff that's running away" might be the only case left where it's really useful. It's almost a given that you've got vastly superior forces, and it seems more feasible to tune it to be really bad at catching ships - though not utterly terrible - while disallowing a loss.
Though there's still the CR issue there. Yeah, you could have "what the 2nd in command gets to deploy" selection stage... hmm. I'd considered that and thought it a bit of a hassle, but maybe that idea is worth another look. Then you could base the amount of stuff captured on how much stuff you allowed to be deployed.
Yeah, I think that could work. You take out the unpleasant randomness of losing a battle because of it, and have an inefficient shortcut to a potentially bothersome task of chasing down a bunch of stuff. Though those battles actually tend to be a fun change of pace, especially when the enemy has a decent amount of escorts and they use them to delay/escort the fleeing ships.
You'd probably still end up with the occasional "how'd that lone Atlas get away from 3 Tempests", but I suppose that's the breaks when you trust the 2nd in command.
You know, this might be too insane to reliably implement... but it would be kind of neat if autoresolve was, in-game, "telling the second in command to handle it." Such that if it messes up you've got someone to demote, or something.
I don't know if that would add enough to the experience for other players to care, but part of the fun in this sort of game for me is that sort of role-playing. Having actions depend upon or be related to crew members helps that. For instance, FTL wrings a lot of pathos out of having one of your resources be the crew manning each station.
Of course, it's not like the game is going to be designed to have you constantly auto-resolve so it might not make sense to look at it for anything but balance. I just like the idea of chastising someone for my bad luck, like a real boss!
*snip*
You know, this might be too insane to reliably implement... but it would be kind of neat if autoresolve was, in-game, "telling the second in command to handle it." Such that if it messes up you've got someone to demote, or something.
I don't know if that would add enough to the experience for other players to care, but part of the fun in this sort of game for me is that sort of role-playing. Having actions depend upon or be related to crew members helps that. For instance, FTL wrings a lot of pathos out of having one of your resources be the crew manning each station.
Of course, it's not like the game is going to be designed to have you constantly auto-resolve so it might not make sense to look at it for anything but balance. I just like the idea of chastising someone for my bad luck, like a real boss!
Aside from the missions, my first impressions after all these changes are:
-The Hyperion is completely worthy of it's high FP cost. It's pretty much perfect now.
-Tempests are, IMO, still stupidly overpowered even after the speed nerf. They're incredibly frustrating to fight now, because the AI tends to just spam the Terminator Drones and endlessly kite you around the map.
-The Omen is no longer useless now that it can rock missiles and fighters with it's EMP. RIP 'Useless Omen' meme...
-The Brawler, on the other hand, is still pretty bad. Anything it could overpower can easily outrun it and anything it can catch can usually beat it down in a straight-on fight. I dunno what it needs, but it needs something.
-Phase Ships are cool and pretty well done.
-Burst weapons are pretty awesome now.
-The Hull Mod system is amazingly flexible. Love it.
-Atropos Torpedos are still really bad. You're almost always better off with Reaper Torpedos, which are faster, deal their damage in a faster burst, and are more durable when en-route to a target. Atropos Torps are really fragile, swatted down by even the most modest PD weaponry, slow enough that all but the largest ships can evade them, and have such poor targeting that they might as well be unguided. They need some love.
I'll give more feedback after I play more. Keep up the awesome work on the game. It's come a long way in just a few months!
From what you just posted, it sounds like you think it updated. It didn't ;)
Just started playing again and I'd like to mention something that Alex probably forgot:
After all the recent changes, a lot of the "Missions" (IE: Standalone battle scenarios) probably need to be re-examined and re-tuned. With the new ship abilities, improved enemy AI, and balance changes to some weapons, some of the battles that were balanced before are now incredibly lopsided.
...
For the autoresolve, probably just going to echo what others have said. Through out all my years of gaming on 4x and whatever else that had auto resolve functions I have ALWAYS avoided it when I cared about the results, and that is 95% of the time. Usually that stems from not knowing what autoresolve will do and not trusting it to account for it to play style of my units.
But having the button there for endless fly swatting missions is really good, like other's said, you are either huge with many armies/fleets (not sure if there will be multifleeting ) or you bumped into an army that is going to get smashed. It is sort of annoying to load up the battle sequence, deploy fleets, wait for them to close, start shooting them and chasing them down after, basically it offers no rewarding gameplay in any capacity.
But yeah having them AI know when they are outgunned via CR / Logistic points etc accurately and then fleeing 100% of the time (except if they are suicidal faction as you said) during those trivial encounters and then auto resolving the fleeing scenario only it would hopefully get rid of those painful situations.
Even if the lud faction there or whatever is crazy like that, that might contribute to the PITA of navigating their areas with having to constantly fight them, or you can perhaps keep their fleet sizes high enough that it won't ever be a boring smash fest, eg swatting3 scout ships is boring, but 10 of them, well, that is probably some fun fireworks.
For autoresolve values, I always thought it would be interesting to leave a spare pc running 24x7 putting together random fleet / loadouts/crew levels, running the fight sped up, then recording results. Then have it continue on forever in a monte carlo style simulation, eventually taking all that data during fight time such that you can find the closest match of the fleet loadouts in that data.
Since that would take forever, we really aught to set up a seti-online / folding@home distributed starsector autoresolve generator and put the world's computers to work crunching this important data. Clearly this is worth a couple month pause in development to get up and running, right? :)
For the autoresolve, probably just going to echo what others have said. Through out all my years of gaming on 4x and whatever else that had auto resolve functions I have ALWAYS avoided it when I cared about the results, and that is 95% of the time. Usually that stems from not knowing what autoresolve will do and not trusting it to account for it to play style of my units.
But having the button there for endless fly swatting missions is really good, like other's said, you are either huge with many armies/fleets (not sure if there will be multifleeting ) or you bumped into an army that is going to get smashed. It is sort of annoying to load up the battle sequence, deploy fleets, wait for them to close, start shooting them and chasing them down after, basically it offers no rewarding gameplay in any capacity.
But yeah having them AI know when they are outgunned via CR / Logistic points etc accurately and then fleeing 100% of the time (except if they are suicidal faction as you said) during those trivial encounters and then auto resolving the fleeing scenario only it would hopefully get rid of those painful situations.
Even if the lud faction there or whatever is crazy like that, that might contribute to the PITA of navigating their areas with having to constantly fight them, or you can perhaps keep their fleet sizes high enough that it won't ever be a boring smash fest, eg swatting3 scout ships is boring, but 10 of them, well, that is probably some fun fireworks.
For autoresolve values, I always thought it would be interesting to leave a spare pc running 24x7 putting together random fleet / loadouts/crew levels, running the fight sped up, then recording results. Then have it continue on forever in a monte carlo style simulation, eventually taking all that data during fight time such that you can find the closest match of the fleet loadouts in that data.
Since that would take forever, we really aught to set up a seti-online / folding@home distributed starsector autoresolve generator and put the world's computers to work crunching this important data. Clearly this is worth a couple month pause in development to get up and running, right? :)
completely worth it and I'm already running seti so I will help with this vital task!
Just started playing again and I'd like to mention something that Alex probably forgot:
After all the recent changes, a lot of the "Missions" (IE: Standalone battle scenarios) probably need to be re-examined and re-tuned. With the new ship abilities, improved enemy AI, and balance changes to some weapons, some of the battles that were balanced before are now incredibly lopsided.
...
Hi, welcome back - long time!
Right. Tuning up (redoing, really) the missions is actually on my list :) It's not something I like to do often because it's a moving target; fine-tuning can be a waste when more things are going to change later anyway. But at this point - with the new deployment mechanics - it's just necessary. I might end up paring down the mission list a bit just to make the process more manageable.
Thanks for all the other feedback, too - it's good to see a "first impressions" style thing from someone that's been away for a while.
For the autoresolve, probably just going to echo what others have said. Through out all my years of gaming on 4x and whatever else that had auto resolve functions I have ALWAYS avoided it when I cared about the results, and that is 95% of the time. Usually that stems from not knowing what autoresolve will do and not trusting it to account for it to play style of my units.
.....
Since that would take forever, we really aught to set up a seti-online / folding@home distributed starsector autoresolve generator and put the world's computers to work crunching this important data. Clearly this is worth a couple month pause in development to get up and running, right? :)
Completely okay with this and support it being added if it helps outFor the autoresolve, probably just going to echo what others have said. Through out all my years of gaming on 4x and whatever else that had auto resolve functions I have ALWAYS avoided it when I cared about the results, and that is 95% of the time. Usually that stems from not knowing what autoresolve will do and not trusting it to account for it to play style of my units.
.....
Since that would take forever, we really aught to set up a seti-online / folding@home distributed starsector autoresolve generator and put the world's computers to work crunching this important data. Clearly this is worth a couple month pause in development to get up and running, right? :)
Well.... here is some food for thought, how comfortable would people be with letting Starsector send back combat and game statistics to Alex? With real statistical numbers and meaningful information being derived from it, it could help reduce the length of development and produce a higher quality game.
I personally don't mind if my game and combat stats are uploaded to a server. I believe Valve already implement a stats tracker in their games.
- generators.csv is now deprecated, use ModPlugin.onNewGame instead.
- Added "newGameCreationEntryPoint" to "plugins" section in settings.json
Just to clarify: will all mods' ModPlugin.onNewGame() be called, or just the one pointed to from newGameCreationEntryPoint? Is there still an equivalent to replacing generators.csv with this new system?
You are making it very difficult to stay patient waiting for the update Alex :PSame.
I check on a daily basis wondering if you have finished the work yet :D
It's very easy to be patient. It's called finding other things to do in the meantime :P
You are making it very difficult to stay patient waiting for the update Alex :PSame.
I check on a daily basis wondering if you have finished the work yet :D
I get on here daily when I turn on my PC, just to check on this thread.
Keep up the good work, looking forward to the next update :)
At some point (hopefully), Alex will realize you need to shift from working on the game's framework, to working on the "game" portion itself. I keep checking back in monthly, only to find the framework effort continuing. It's been two years or more (?) and we're still single-sector sandbox?
Not belittling the effort Alex, but there's a game portion to be written too, yes? Story, campaign, universe, etc etc.
At some point (hopefully), Alex will realize you need to shift from working on the game's framework, to working on the "game" portion itself. I keep checking back in monthly, only to find the framework effort continuing. It's been two years or more (?) and we're still single-sector sandbox?
Not belittling the effort Alex, but there's a game portion to be written too, yes? Story, campaign, universe, etc etc.
Are StianStarks combat sounds going to make it into this update? I'd like to think hes had plenty of time to get them done...
Are StianStarks combat sounds going to make it into this update? I'd like to think hes had plenty of time to get them done...
Do you plan to scrap the blockade run scenario (what is currently called escape) completely, Alex? It might be nice to have it come up from time to time, maybe in connection with the option to blockade stations or hypergates. I mean, it is fun, just too harsh as an escape scenario where you have no choice. And since the mechanic and admiral AI are already in place...
Question for next version. I generally like playing alone, so its only my ship in whole fleet (that big ***...onslaught). Will it still be possible to play with one ship and go from fight to fight in next version? Will it be a lot harder?
I like surprises, myself.
On that note: Any plans on adding "Support" ships with (Out of combat) repairing/refitting capabilities? We have freighters for cargo, tankers for fuel, ect. With the "Combat Readiness" aspect, having a ship that speeds up repairs and re-readying would be very important.
Small Tri-Tach ships are a lot faster, but that's perfectly normal. Heavier hi-tech ships are slow. Onslaught, Dominator and Enforcer are the fastest ships in their categories. They don't need powerful shields because it takes three anti-matter shots to just break the armor. Their firepower is overwhelming. Conquest is the most agile battlecruiser, it has 25% more powerful generators than the Odyssey, two times more weapons and three times more speed. Sunder with a plasma cannon or three heavy blasters can destroy cruisers and battlecruisers in 1-on-1 fights. I sincerely don't see your point, Nanostrike. ::)
Ah, I see and totally agree. Low- and mid-tech frigates suck like a black hole. They are cheaper, you can get four Lashers for the same money as a single Tempest, but the bad thing is that Tempest will destroy all four without breaking a sweat.
Extra CR cost for suffering a flameout of [sic] weapons being disabled by damage
Ah, I see and totally agree. Low- and mid-tech frigates suck like a black hole. They are cheaper, you can get four Lashers for the same money as a single Tempest, but the bad thing is that Tempest will destroy all four without breaking a sweat.
I use brawlers as small fire support platforms for larger brawls
I use brawlers as small fire support platforms for larger brawls (brawlers, get it?), park them behind cruisers or destroyers with either full anti armor for finishing (dual chaingun and dual LAG) or full anti shield to give your big ships an edge (all needlers if possible, dual HAC and DLAC otherwise)
They aren't meant for small frigate fights, I'll give it that, they're more like pocket destroyers (all the firing profile of the head of a hammerhead with universals instead of missiles to boot, just no PD)
SpoilerAbout auto-resolve: I *ABUSE* this feature mercilessly (as in EVERY fight after gaining some ships), for without it, my level soft cap would be in the low 30's, instead of the mid-40's to low-50's. I can max Leadership and Technology, assemble a fleet that can win all auto-resolved battles against everything including system defense fleets, then max out combat after the power leveling session.
If auto-resolve must go, I like to see experience gains from combat skyrocket to make level grinding less of a chore. Even if auto-resolve stays, taking time to fight yourself should grant a massive experience bonus to discourage the use of auto-resolve for the sole purpose of power leveling.[close]
If auto-resolve must go, I like to see experience gains from combat skyrocket to make level grinding less of a chore. Even if auto-resolve stays, taking time to fight yourself should grant a massive experience bonus to discourage the use of auto-resolve for the sole purpose of power leveling.
I hope fighting everything as it is now will remain viable, though seeing alternative non-combat options would be nice for those less bloodthirsty.
I have the most fun at the endgame, at the level 45+ range, smashing big fleets with a varied combination of overpowered ships. I just wish there were more big fleets aside from Hegemony System Defense Fleets (Tri-Tachyon Security Detachments are not big enough).
I dislike early game because you start with junk equipment, limited hullmods, and too few OP to get everything you need. Simulator (and some missions) can replicate early game conditions very well, but cannot replicate big fleet battles beyond that part of the game. I can see early game being a bit fun, where you need to think a little to survive. It is just too low powered for my tastes.
I hope the finished game will not punish you for excessive fighting, aside from making new enemies I wanted to fight anyway. Non-combat stuff are thegrinding, um...means to the fun stuff - fighting. My plan for the game is to build up everything I need, declare war on the ENTIRE sector, fight everything, and win. Why fight everything? I get the most variety of opponents when all are the enemy.
Alex, are you the only developer working on the next patch? Do you have other projects going on besides Starfarer?
Alex, are you the only developer working on the next patch? Do you have other projects going on besides Starfarer?
I think he's the only one coding the game itself, and also pretty sure that he is only working on starsector.
Alex, are you the only developer working on the next patch? Do you have other projects going on besides Starfarer?
I think he's the only one coding the game itself, and also pretty sure that he is only working on starsector.
Look at the Credits....
Alex Mosolov - dev and game design
David Baumgart - art game design
Ivaylo Kovatchev - lore game design coding
Matthew Steele - sound
Stian Stark - sound,music
So wait, do fighters affect travel? Do they have travel drives?
Are you sure that's still just the jump from 0.54 to 0.6? It seems more like 0.54 to 0.7 to me.
Ok, so if every patch ticks us 0.01... 0.51, 0.52, 0.53, 0.54.... And now we're going to 0.6....Does that mean 6 major overhauls~?.... 0.55, CR... 0.56, fighter rework... 0.57, multi-sector travel..... So what's 0.58 through to 0.6? :P
I knew that there would be a surprise for the wait. A whole new sector to play in. XD
Changes as of July 11, 2013Yeeeeees!!
Hyperspace:
- Jump points/wormholes for travel between star system and hyperspace
- Travel through hyperspace to another system, same as in-system travel
- Added new star system ("Askonia")
- More details to come in the form of further patch notes and/or blog post
Fighter mechanics changes...
[/li]
- Fighter wings can not be lost if there are any ships with a flight deck in the fleet
- Without a ship with a flight deck, fighter wing losses can not be replaced even out-of-combat
- Damaged fighters are repaired immediately (and at no cost), regardless of whether a flight deck is available
[li]Hangar space removed[/li]
CR-related:
- Weapons/engines being disable no longer affects CR. Instead, taking hull damage does.
Miscellaneous:Huh. Well ok then, can't say I mind :D...
- Added "maximum burn" stat to ships; determines travel speed
- Lowest value in fleet is used
- No penalty for having many ships
- Temporarily removed "Coordinated Maneuvers" skill
- Added maximum travel speed to fleet tooltip in travel screen
TIME TO DOMINATE THE STAR CLUSTER! ENGAGE WARP DRIVES!Spoiler(http://i.imgur.com/izA6Juh.jpg)[close]
CR-related:
- Weapons/engines being disable no longer affects CR. Instead, taking hull damage does.
Does this include armor damage?
Hyperspace:
Crazy Eddie points/wormholes for travel between star system and hyperspace
Travel through hyperspace to another system, same as in-system travel
Added new star system ("Askonia")
More details to come in the form of further patch notes and/or blog post[/list]
Ships delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50, items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100
Ensures the inventory doesn't stagnate
Added "maximum burn" stat to ships; determines travel speed
Lowest value in fleet is used
No penalty for having many ships
Hangar space removed
I don't suppose its ready enough to release an API? I think I speak for every single person here when I say that I have like 5 new star systems I want to make.
I'm glad the hangar space is gone - it would feel weird given how much fighters rely on carriers. Will the ships who had hangars be getting any buffs? The Vigilance and Hammerhead come to mind as ships that really benefited from supporting fighters.
Does this include armor damage?
Do frigates still "wear out" after a while in battle even with this new CR mechanic? I think this new way makes much more sense than a frigate's crew just falling asleep at the wheel after a couple minutes. Come on, men, stop drinking all that vodka and rum. Ugh. Those damn green rookies, what am I gonna do with them?
Will the hyperspace system be some kind of placeholder or are you aiming straight for the final implementation (with room for changes of course)?
Ships delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50, items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100
Ensures the inventory doesn't stagnate
Potential problem: A ship you are saving money for gets replaced before you can buy it. Frustrating.
Maybe add the option to "reserve" the ship so the station keeps it in stock?
So, with the hyperspace travel, is there any use for Fuel? or has it been removed?
From your comment on no API for systems does this mean we (modders) will just have the two to play with? Not complaining at all btw, I was quite happy with one! Haha!
How does it handle *stuff* happening in the system your not in? As in, does everything (fleets, spawnpoints) keep running their advance()? Or does it pause and then 'catch up' when the player switches over?
is Askonia also manually defined? Or are we going to procedural generation already?
also this is probably gonna be covered by a blog in a bit but I feel like asking anyway: How does the hyperspace work? Do you go into a wormhole to get to a "interstellar map" and then it's intra-system style traveling from there?
So, with the hyperspace travel, is there any use for Fuel? or has it been removed?
Temporarily removed "Coordinated Maneuvers" skillThere goes an easy +25 FP :(
Oh mai, ill have a lot of work to do then:
its a BIG image, u were warned.Spoiler(http://www.star-control.com/files/Starmaps/07.png)[close]
You know all these cool changes only make us sad because we cannot play them, right? :'(Fleet point have been removed from the game ;)
(just kidding, take your time Alex)QuoteTemporarily removed "Coordinated Maneuvers" skillThere goes an easy +25 FP :(
:o *pinches self* nope, not a dream~ *celebrates*You can feel physical pain in dreams. I know from experience. It feels weird, but it is definitely pain.
How much is the hyperspace in SS going to resemble the one from Star Control II? Surprised at how feature-heavy this patch is becoming, but I guess it's shaping up to be quite worth the wait.
*groans* guess it's time to get back on the modding wagon soon!
So it sounds like there will be two methods of travel between systems: wormholes and jumping. I'm guessing wormholes are naturally occurring phenomenon - are hyperspace jumps dependent upon "jump gates" or something similar, or can ships just jump independently more like star wars? I'm curious to know if there will be a way of locking down a system and preventing ships from jumping in or out.
I presume if we can completely define a system, we being modders, we can make it so a particular faction only shows up in one system?
can AI fleets be made to go between systems yet?
Will AI Fleets be able to persue the player through wormholes or Jump Points to other systems? Can the AI Fleets even use the wormholes or Jump Points?
I'd just like to know - how easy is it to implement a new system via mods right now, alex? And how straight-forward is that part of the code?
Please don't wait too long with a blogpost about hyperspace Alex, I can ....barely.....contain ...all the..........questions!.....
How much is the hyperspace in SS going to resemble the one from Star Control II?
I'd just like to know - how easy is it to implement a new system via mods right now, alex? And how straight-forward is that part of the code?
I'd just like to know - how easy is it to implement a new system via mods right now, alex? And how straight-forward is that part of the code?
No much more complex than defining Corvus. It's basically the same thing, except there's a step where you define where in hyperspace the system goes.
I'd just like to know - how easy is it to implement a new system via mods right now, alex? And how straight-forward is that part of the code?
No much more complex than defining Corvus. It's basically the same thing, except there's a step where you define where in hyperspace the system goes.
So fluffwise, how does this tie into the gates? Can we only access a local 'bubble' of hyperspace through wormholes and need gates to get out into the wider hyperspace pool?So it sounds like there will be two methods of travel between systems: wormholes and jumping. I'm guessing wormholes are naturally occurring phenomenon - are hyperspace jumps dependent upon "jump gates" or something similar, or can ships just jump independently more like star wars? I'm curious to know if there will be a way of locking down a system and preventing ships from jumping in or out.That's more an issue of terminology, I'm using "wormhole" and "jump point" somewhat interchangeably. Ships have to use a jump point to transition, though that doesn't imply that it's a man-made construction - rather, a naturally-occuring phenomenon.
All of these questions might be answered in the blog post, but...From the sounds of it, travel will work much like a game I've been shown recently, Freelancer. Naturally occuring wormholes that lead to other systems which ships can utilise.-snipsnipsnip--snip-snipsnip-
So fluffwise, how does this tie into the gates?
Can we build smaller gates to create artificial wormholes into systems that don't have any natural exits? Will all/some systems have multiple exit points, so 1-exit ones are easier to defend?
Actually, if we can move around hyperspace like the system map will we be able to intercept other fleets eventually or is that not possible?
So, how will the lore fare with the update? In the base lore, it said that the, "gates were silent."
:P
"local" travel amongst systems simply requires the use of these wormholes. "non-local" travel amongst sectors requires Mass Effect-esque relays to throw you across the galaxy. The gates don't work, but the wormholes do because wormholes are natural and not man-made.
You know, I need to dig into the lore, is the situation with the gates something like EVE Online's lore of the EVE Gate? The EVE Gate linked back to the known galaxy after everything there was explored and settled. Settlers flooded the EVE galaxy until some sort of unknown event caused the gate to collapse, leaving tons of un sustainable colonies in the EVE galaxy stranded. As the colonies fell apart with only a few left with the resources to become sustainable, it took millennia before the settlers could reach a stage where they were capable of space travel again. Knowledge of the Milky Way that lay on the other side of the closed gate was lost by the time the colonies reached the timeframe that the game plays in, all the 4 Empires know is that it was what brought them to the EVE galaxy.
Is there something similar with Starsector? Was the Sector cut off by an event, leaving everyone stranded and over time the knowledge of how to use much of the technology was lost to the peoples?
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/02/21/the-state-of-affairs/
Just want to get this straight, (I'll do it with an example) so there's two wings of Talons, a Lasher frigate, and a Condor carrier. I can't destroy the Talon wings so I decide to go right ahead and destroy the Condor. I destroy one Talon wing (that is, all 4 fighters) and the entire enemy fleet decides to retreat. On the campaign map, will that enemy fleet now have just a Lasher and a single Talon wing? Or is that second Talon wing somehow still alive?
How long are we talking, here? Cuz if it's a really long time (Basically only coming into play when someone is taking forever trying to kite a huge fleet), it might not be too bad.
Will there be different timers for different ships? Will there be skills to make it less impactful on a player's ship?
I need more info to really draw a judgement, but this one makes me feel really iffy.
The Combat aptitude now raises maximum CR for piloted ship instead of providing a damage bonus
Changes as of July 11, 2013
Hyperspace:
Changes as of July 11, 2013
Hyperspace:
Omigod omigod omigod omigod omigod...
I think someone is going to need a broom handle to pry me off of the ceiling.
Another system will be nice, but i can't imagine there being much to do yet without variable prices or mining or anything in yet.
Yea, there's some audio cues for "low CR due to extended deployment" and some more audio cues for when the ship starts to malfunction due to extremely low CR levels. :DYeah, but those aren't sexy...
From the sounds of it, travel will work much like a game I've been shown recently, Freelancer. Naturally occuring wormholes that lead to other systems which ships can utilise.In freelancer, there are two types of wormholes - naturally occuring ones and man-made ones. They do the same thing, but the man-made ones are generally in the policed areas of space while the natural ones are hidden off in dust clouds etc, often the territory of - and used by - the pirates and other 'unsavory' groups.
Is there a chance we could see a new faction in the new system, or can't you talk about that?
Any audio changes being thrown in with this update?
Hopefully it won't be a long wait till everything has been implemented. Since things appear to be moving on from CR to the new Hyperspace stuff, that means CR is basically done for this iteration and ready for us to try out :)
Ah, Alex, have you thought of a use for Fuel yet? There's still stacks of it laying around in the station. ;) How will fuel be used int eh Hyperspace part?
There's pending UI work for logistics etc. That's probably one of the bigger humps to get over, beyond tidying stuff up and doing various assorted things. And other things. Did I mention things? There are lots of things.Aye, understandable!
Hyperspace combat is totally going to have way different properties, right...right!?! :)
Like, super flux regen, or maybe shields don't work, or everybody is slower, or, weapons that only work in hyperspace etc etc? :)
Anyway really cool the big game is finally taking shape and the world building can begin. It will be interesting how you start dealing with systems that are 'off screen'.
I can picture something like each system it has resource outputs and growth based on the outputs of surrounding/linked systems as you go, or perhaps there just needs to be a bit of a bit of a catch up function that can speed through several years of updates just as you are arriving at it.
Can't wait to figure everything out again with all the changes when the next patch is released.
Hyperspace combat is totally going to have way different properties, right...right!?! :)
Anyway really cool the big game is finally taking shape and the world building can begin. It will be interesting how you start dealing with systems that are 'off screen'.
I can picture something like each system it has resource outputs and growth based on the outputs of surrounding/linked systems as you go, or perhaps there just needs to be a bit of a bit of a catch up function that can speed through several years of updates just as you are arriving at it.
what makes you even think we can fight in hyperspace ? in almost every fictional setting, every FTL travelling alternative prevents any sort of combat completly, wether its stargate's wormhole, star wars hyperspace or star trek warp drive etc
In the harrington novels, they could fight in the FTL travel mode thing. But it was completly different to normal space fighting. Had to get in close and personal with lasers (missiles didn't work), and all the shielding doesn't work, so basically it was a slaughterfest. But meant small ships could take down much bigger ones (admittedly also getting killed themselves).
Completely off-topic though. again.
On-topic, some hull mods or something to give ships advantages in hyperspace-fighting might be cool? Nothing to radical, just movement buffs or something of the sort.
Will hyperspace fights be initiated in a similar fashion to the Trade Lanes of Freelancer, or warp destabilization in EVE? Pirates can knock out a section of the trade lane in Freelancer, forcing ships to drop out of it and wait for it to become operational again or try and flee to the next section of the lane to get back into the slipstream. In EVE, specialized Interdictors can drop warp disruption probes that destabilize the warp bubble of a ship currently in warp, dragging it out of warp in the process. Though the effect of dragging the ship out of warp can cause it to slingshot many kilometres before coming to a stop, if it remains close enough to be affected by the probe still, then the ship is left unable to warp away. This also goes for the group using the disruptor probe, they cannot warp either, nor can the Interdictor that dropped the probe. Similarly, a Heavy Interdictor can mount equipment that allows it to become the probe, projecting it's own interdiction bubble.
TL:DR
Will hyperspace fights happen IN hyperspace, or will ships be dragged out of hyperspace to fight in deadspace?
that was only when they were within those gravity bands, there was this one book later in the series where she took a refitted freighter to take down pirates and near the end of this book they had a battle with a pair of Haven ships in a pocket of hyperspace
book is called Honor Among Enemies
that was only when they were within those gravity bands, there was this one book later in the series where she took a refitted freighter to take down pirates and near the end of this book they had a battle with a pair of Haven ships in a pocket of hyperspace
book is called Honor Among Enemies
I remember in one book, a manticore convoy of civilian ships with a destroyer escort is attacked by a much bigger haven ship. The destroyer peels off and basically, although far outclassed by the haven ship, successfully defends the convoy (by having both ships just rip each other apart with lasers). Due to the lack of impellers, the ships are very vulnerable, and missiles don't work (since they are propelled by impeller drives).
Don't know what book it is I'm afraid. I've read all of them, and there are a lot! They kinda meld together :P
Yeah, you are right it was only when they were travelling in the gravity bands that they were using the warsaki sails (however its spelt). Man, is it a detailed universe he created. Shame I feel that the series is getting worse as it goes on. Will still buy the next books though :P
silly question: why aren't patches tinier and released more often/regularly? It keeps the pace within the community, it keeps people entertained and playing, it's easier to debug. Just curious. I'm not judging nor complaining don't get me wrong. I just bought the game a few days ago so I wouldn't dare :), it's just that 7 months without any client change seems an awful lot of time! Especially in the indie market. Is it a one man job and is it developed as a part time job? cheers!
silly question: why aren't patches tinier and released more often/regularly?
Changes as of July 11, 2013Changes as of May 24, 2013
- Tossed multiple systems in the mix *evil cackle*
Changes as of March 23, 2013
- Added some modding doohickeys
Changes as of March 13, 2013
- More dastardly reinventions
- Reinvented Starsector
- That is all
(its the only way to be sure)(http://i.imgur.com/ZfO3v.gif)
So... are we going to have a method to call up docking, trade, etc. via the available functions?
...
I.E., if we want to, say, not allow docking with un-friendly locations, can that be implemented?
Can custom buttons run custom functions?
Can we build things like a trigger, so that IF un-friendly, show "assault this base"; if "assault this base" clicked, THEN run (custom battle Mission) and IF during (custom battle Mission) something happens THEN set (some persistent state in Campaign)?
I didn't think I would really know what to expect from the game after the patch.
Looking at the new modding stuff, I don't think I know what to expect from all the mods. Holy <randomDeity/randomProfanity>.
Can we see any examples of dialog UI implementations yet, even if it's still rough? I think that one of the biggies that people are going to want to try hacking out ASAP is Stuff To Do With Planets and Stations.
package com.fs.starfarer.api.impl.campaign;
import java.awt.Color;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.Global;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.CampaignFleetAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.InteractionDialogAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.InteractionDialogPlugin;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.OptionPanelAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.PlanetAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.TextPanelAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.VisualPanelAPI;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.campaign.JumpPointAPI.JumpDestination;
import com.fs.starfarer.api.combat.EngagementResultAPI;
public class PlanetInteractionDialogPluginImpl implements InteractionDialogPlugin {
private static enum OptionId {
INIT,
LEAVE,
}
private InteractionDialogAPI dialog;
private TextPanelAPI textPanel;
private OptionPanelAPI options;
private VisualPanelAPI visual;
private CampaignFleetAPI playerFleet;
private PlanetAPI planet;
private static final Color HIGHLIGHT_COLOR = Global.getSettings().getColor("buttonShortcut");
public void init(InteractionDialogAPI dialog) {
this.dialog = dialog;
textPanel = dialog.getTextPanel();
options = dialog.getOptionPanel();
visual = dialog.getVisualPanel();
playerFleet = Global.getSector().getPlayerFleet();
planet = (PlanetAPI) dialog.getInteractionTarget();
visual.setVisualFade(0.25f, 0.25f);
visual.showPlanetInfo(planet);
dialog.setOptionOnEscape("Leave", OptionId.LEAVE);
optionSelected(null, OptionId.INIT);
}
private EngagementResultAPI lastResult = null;
public void backFromEngagement(EngagementResultAPI result) {
// no combat here, so this won't get called
}
public void optionSelected(String text, Object optionData) {
if (optionData == null) return;
OptionId option = (OptionId) optionData;
if (text != null) {
textPanel.addParagraph(text, Global.getSettings().getColor("buttonText"));
}
switch (option) {
case INIT:
addText(getString("approach"));
createInitialOptions();
break;
case LEAVE:
Global.getSector().setPaused(false);
dialog.dismiss();
break;
}
}
private Map<OptionId, JumpDestination> destinationMap = new HashMap<OptionId, JumpDestination>();
private void createInitialOptions() {
options.clearOptions();
options.addOption("Leave", OptionId.LEAVE, null);
}
private OptionId lastOptionMousedOver = null;
public void optionMousedOver(String optionText, Object optionData) {
}
public void advance(float amount) {
}
private void addText(String text) {
textPanel.addParagraph(text);
}
private void appendText(String text) {
textPanel.appendToLastParagraph(" " + text);
}
private String getString(String id) {
String str = Global.getSettings().getString("planetInteractionDialog", id);
String fleetOrShip = "fleet";
if (playerFleet.getFleetData().getMembersListCopy().size() == 1) {
fleetOrShip = "ship";
if (playerFleet.getFleetData().getMembersListCopy().get(0).isFighterWing()) {
fleetOrShip = "fighter wing";
}
}
str = str.replaceAll("\\$fleetOrShip", fleetOrShip);
str = str.replaceAll("\\$planetName", planet.getFullName());
return str;
}
public Object getContext() {
return null;
}
}
The Autofire AI / Ship AI stuff is huge; can't wait to try that stuff out :)
Custom ship styles? Like, you mean Tech Level or Ship Class? Because if we can add custom classes then expect to see the Spriter's size guide get fudged with a lot.
So based on whats on the notes, having a ship completely change its hull based on a shipsystem wont be achievable?You can sorta do that right now; erase the ship, replace it with the other ship, match up damage states.
Hyperspace jump point/gravity well generated by the star can only be used if you have a high navigation skill, places the fleet in a random location near the star
Added WeaponAPI.getSprite() - returns SpriteAPI for the current weapon frame. Can be used to enable additive blending (glowy weapon sprite animations), adjust sprite color/transparency dynamically, etc
Made ship hull styles fully moddable (shield color, explosion color, etc)
Configured in data/config/hull_styles.json
Can add new, fully-custom styles
Can set custom engine/shield/etc sounds per style in sounds.json (see "engine_loop" for an example, can use custom style IDs there)
Engine styles:
Can now be specified directly under "style" (i.e.: "style":"midlineFlare", as opposed to "style":"CUSTOM","styleId":"midlineFlare"). Old way still works.
All vanilla engine styles can be overridden using engine_styles.json
Styles for LOW_TECH, MIDLINE, and HIGH_TECH extracted to engine_styles.json (as examples)
Ship and fighter AI is now fully moddable
...Can we see any examples of dialog UI implementations yet, even if it's still rough? I think that one of the biggies that people are going to want to try hacking out ASAP is Stuff To Do With Planets and Stations.
Sure - here's the one for planet interactions, that doesn't do anything other than show the planet in the visual pane and lets you leave.
(The layout is: text panel on the left, visual panel on the right, options below. Somewhat adjustable.)
...
Thats why i want it released :D, there's so much work to be done!
On the side note, i expect the planet interaction is just like a stations, you click on it and you fleet will fly in to the middle.
Quick question about this: looking through the class its clear that it expects a PlanetAPI from dialog.getInteractionTarget(). But how does the game know to send that to this plugin when planets are clicked? Is that something we have to register or is it handled behind the scenes (and sorry if this is a dumb question, modding has changed a lot and I haven't really wrapped my head around how a lot of the new plugin stuff works)?
So based on whats on the notes, having a ship completely change its hull based on a shipsystem wont be achievable?
So via these custom dialogs, we can Jump, see the results of the last Engagement (i.e., start a fight at a Station, engage a Station's guards, win, take over, Station loses cargo and / or Blueprints and / or industrial capacity as a result) and a bunch of other stuff? So a Station can be anything from an ultra-complex smorgasbord of Missions to a simplistic toll-gate for Jumping? That is really nice!
The only thing that's missing is some way to interact with the Stations other than blowing them up. I've always wanted to see "space cities" that we could fly around in and talk to mobs and static things. IDK why, really- the idea of traveling around a city-like thing has a lot of appeal for whatever reasons. The idea of having a battle in one, dodging static elements and engaging huge defenses is really fun, though!
I guess that could be executed via a Mission, but I presume we can't do Dialogs in Missions... or can we? And does Neutral work as a SIDE yet, so that non-combatants / third parties can be in Missions yet, even if only via custom AI?
Also, one of the biggies that's not in the build; is there going to be an official method for allowing the AI to engage Stations and Planets yet? Can Stations and Planets be treated like a Fleet object so that they can have ships like a normal Fleet?
I don't mean any "smart strategic AI that decides when this would be smart", don't get me wrong, just the basic mechanics?
This is one of those things I've hesitated to kludge into my mod for some time now, largely because I'm looking forward to a standard method. The references you've made to "creating Outposts" suggests that Stations are no longer perma-objects in the gameworld... how does that work?
Alex I love you. I've said that a lot before, but now I love you a lot more. Like, a whole lot. That's a considerable amount of love.
Is there a way to set a certain background on a per-star system basis? Like, you might have one system exist in normal space, and have a generic starry background, but another nearby system might be in the middle nebula and have an appropriate background.
Oh, another question: can you jump a fleet by using the interaction dialog plugin? Go to a station>Click "Warp me outside of the universe">dialog closes, you're outside the universe.
Subsequently, can AI fleets be jumped to other systems without actually going through a jump point? Script>on arrival>warps fleet outside universe.
Hyperspace jump point/gravity well generated by the star can only be used if you have a high navigation skill, places the fleet in a random location near the star
Is there any other way of interstellar travel? Because if not, navigation now becomes a must-have skill. Which is the same as a no-choice skill. Which means there's no reason for it to be a selectable skill at all, to limit hyperspace access you could just as well tie it to character level. Or am I missing something?
There are jump points from which you can enter hyperspace, so you don't need a high navigation skill. Right now we have no idea is there will be any restrictions on it, or where it will be.
Edit: Will be flux effect moddable to?
Quick question about this: looking through the class its clear that it expects a PlanetAPI from dialog.getInteractionTarget(). But how does the game know to send that to this plugin when planets are clicked? Is that something we have to register or is it handled behind the scenes (and sorry if this is a dumb question, modding has changed a lot and I haven't really wrapped my head around how a lot of the new plugin stuff works)?
There's a new plugin system that determines which plugin is chosen for specific entities based on priority. Look for CampaignPlugin in the patch notes. :)
With the way combat works on the campaign level, though, you could fairly easily change the battle depending on whether it's near a planet or a station, and you could also have autoresolve take that into account.OK, so does that mean there's now a Campaign-level event that we're able to use to adjust the outcomes for AI-on-AI battles? If so, wonderful, that makes dynamic diplomacy much easier to work on.
ops, just to be more specify: I meant flux venting effect ofc.
Right; it's just the star's gravity well that requires high skill. Other points don't. I'd imagine a star system only accessible through its star's gravity well would make for a pretty good hideout, though. Assuming there's actually a way out!
When will this be realesed??Some time between now and the end of the universe.
The only thing that's missing is some way to interact with the Stations other than blowing them up. I've always wanted to see "space cities" that we could fly around in and talk to mobs and static things. IDK why, really- the idea of traveling around a city-like thing has a lot of appeal for whatever reasons. The idea of having a battle in one, dodging static elements and engaging huge defenses is really fun, though!
I guess that could be executed via a Mission, but I presume we can't do Dialogs in Missions... or can we? And does Neutral work as a SIDE yet, so that non-combatants / third parties can be in Missions yet, even if only via custom AI?
No dialogs in missions, no. Neutral doesn't work as a side, and it's not really likely to at any point. It's only meant for asteroids and such. Although, with custom AI, you probably could pull that off, though I can't say, off the top of my head, how the normal AI would react to "neutral" objects attacking it. Probably not well.
But you could definitely code up a mini-game where you're a guy walking around the station, using the custom ui panel stuff. Not that that's even remotely the same :)
So based on whats on the notes, having a ship completely change its hull based on a shipsystem wont be achievable?Possible via ShipAPI.setSprite() and ShipAPI.getExactBounds() (to update the bounds.)
So based on whats on the notes, having a ship completely change its hull based on a shipsystem wont be achievable?Possible via ShipAPI.setSprite() and ShipAPI.getExactBounds() (to update the bounds.)
Holy crap Alex did you just finish making my Star Control II mod possible?! :-*
Holy crap Alex did you just finish making my Star Control II mod possible?! :-*
I feel that if you can enter a system, there should be a way to leave it. It would really, really suck to be exploring and encounter an inescapable death trap like that. I have a strong aversion to losing things due to circumstances outside my control. Even if the only way out were an emergency jump that comes with a HUGE hit to your CR (like a flat 30-50% or so) and significant hull damage (anywhere from 10-99% of your current hp), that would be preferable to a game over for something so silly.
I actually like that 'Emergency Jump' idea- though I think it'd make sense only with smaller fleets.
I have a strong aversion to losing things due to circumstances outside my control.
I have a strong aversion to losing things due to circumstances outside my control.
I prefer knowing the risks of my Do's and Don'ts.
I hate FTL for it's almost luck based approach to winning the game. A random encounter with a ship with teleporters and Mantises can finish a game at any stage of the game. Not counting the fact that you may be unlucky enough that the shops you encounter never stock weapons adequate enough for the final boss, sometimes even leaving you with the weapons you had from the start of the game. Or you might find that one fire inducing beam of mass destruction that allows you to cackle maniacally while every strafe with the beam sets half their ship on fire. Maybe you decided to use drones to attack, only the last few shops and random events have offered you no drones, leaving you effectively weaponless. Those sorts of chance occurrences are just infuriating to me.
I have a strong sympathy for events that make me lose things due to circumstances outside my control.
Excessive control removes the FUN (read it as a DF quote).
That's an interesting question overall.
Regarding FTL, I think it's mostly a matter of how you approach the game. If you into it with the idea that you're going to try a specific type of build, you're going to have a rough time. The game throws stuff at you and it's up to you to build a coherent whole out of it. If you've got it in your mind that you're trying to build a drone ship, you're likely to miss out on a lot of opportunities. Basically, I think it emphasizes adaptation over planning, and that if you approach it with that in mind, the random elements are mostly fine.
Will you lose the occasional game because you got no extra fuel ever? Yeah, you might, but that may only happen one in a thousand games, and it'll probably be fun trying to survive anyway. I'm also pretty sure that "letting you win every time if you play perfectly" wasn't a design goal, and the focus was more on enjoyable play sessions. For that, I think adaptation over planning is a good call, even if it'd be nice to play a more planned-out game of it every now and again.
@Silver Silence, @Histidine: I think the answer here is very simple; you don't enjoy Roguelikes. Good thing Starsector isn't one.
I've been thinking a lot about how to make a procedural sector with the new API - is there any way at the moment to make a new faction from a script without external files?
will the launcher auto update? because every time i have tried to get my activation code back i fail because i can't remember the email i used at the time i bought it ???
You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to getting this release in your guys' hands :)
The *REDACTED* is surely the sound effect overhaul?! :o
You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to getting this release in your guys' hands :)
With that said, I'm just asking for the vaguest idea of whether you are at 50% or 90% of what you wanted to do.
It's not really a joke, but...With that said, I'm just asking for the vaguest idea of whether you are at 50% or 90% of what you wanted to do.
Definitely closer to 90% than to 50%. Way closer.
@Foxer360
thanks so 0.54a still the latest release it seems
Hm... A thought on the AI modding - this means we'll be able to actually make an AI that doesn't have issues with long skinny ships, doesn't it?
Alex, is it possible to replace just the "range from weapon to target" part of the existing AI, or will we have to re-implement the whole thing?
If the latter, is the code for the default AI going to be available to provide a starting point?
No. It's really not in any shape for that. I see full general-purpose AI modding as something that would mostly be the domain of total conversions, anyway. You'd also have to write custom AI for all the ship systems - since custom system AI is a plugin to the default AI, and if that is replaced, well.But that's just a plugin, right? So just a one-liner to stick it back in the loop, but the Big Question then becomes where in the loop it executes?
So, my current mod will be broken? The file structure will have to be changed, right? Ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, how many things will be broken? Gah, I'm such a noob.
So, my current mod will be broken? The file structure will have to be changed, right? Ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, how many things will be broken? Gah, I'm such a noob.
Some things will be broken, mostly to do with campaign scripts. Things like ship and weapon data will be just fine, though. Unless your weapons are relying on core sounds; those might have to be adjusted, but that's a pretty simple change.
Basically, I'm taking some care not to break things, and certainly not to break them without at least a half-decent reason :)
So, my current mod will be broken? The file structure will have to be changed, right? Ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, how many things will be broken? Gah, I'm such a noob.
Some things will be broken, mostly to do with campaign scripts. Things like ship and weapon data will be just fine, though. Unless your weapons are relying on core sounds; those might have to be adjusted, but that's a pretty simple change.
Basically, I'm taking some care not to break things, and certainly not to break them without at least a half-decent reason :)
Also, is http://fractalsoftworks.com/starfarer.api/ (http://fractalsoftworks.com/starfarer.api/) close to being updated again? :)
Are there going to be changes to the generators for fleets, such as the player fleet etc. and will there also be changes to the way a player may choose the starting ship, or is that mostly the same?
BTW, wanted to ask if it would be possible to specify a starting position (system - specific location in it) so that players would be able to fully enjoy their faction pick after creation (and not end up in the middle of enemy controlled system with just a freighter :) ).
Please for the love of god release a new version of the game, I love your game so much that I check almost daily for updates and I can't believe its been about 8 months since the last version came out :)Love of god actually has quite a bad exchange rate. I don't think you can even buy a loaf of bread with it.
Oh hm. Maybe I just missed it, but speaking of moddable AI, will we be able to make custom missile AIs?Just checked the current notes: There're ships, fighters, autofire and drones; but for now no missiles.
So Alex I'm assuming at some point there will be an actual economy with different buying and selling prices for each station? Will there be commodities (Eg. Spice, Unobtanium, Flux Crystals)? How will you make being a trader interesting rather than a grind?I'm assuming defending your big slow fleet of freighters from pirates will be quite interesting.
Or dodging between huge fleets in your small cargo frigate. That's what I can't wait for.
I don't miss Freelancer at all..... :'(
void removeSpawnPoint(SpawnPointPlugin point)Yay!
Mmm, finally a pd hint that only makes it hit missilesYeah, that's great.
Adjusted base travel speed (increased)
Removed travel speed bonus for not being near a planet
Available in Askonia, other places
Repair mechanics:
"Emergency repairs" fleetwide stat; starts at 5, supply use for these repairs doesn't affect logistics
Maximum total repairs performed (in supplies/day) are emergency repairs + unused logistics capacity (i.e. if "emergency repairs" are at 5, and the logistics use is 10/25, maximum total repairs per day are 20.)
Awesome!
- Hulls can now have built-in hullmods
More Awesome!
- Added PD_ONLY weapon hint
Does this mean we can now change how the damage types work? Maybe make a ship where high explosive damage deals 200% to shields but only 50% to armor?
- MutableStat getBeamDamageTakenMult();
- MutableStat getMissileDamageTakenMult();
- MutableStat getProjectileDamageTakenMult(); // non-missile, non-dps
- MutableStat getEnergyDamageTakenMult();
- MutableStat getKineticDamageTakenMult();
- MutableStat getHighExplosiveDamageTakenMult();
- MutableStat getFragmentationDamageTakenMult();
Yay!
- Added ScopeDescription.ALL_FIGHTERS
And this one, I think, speaks to how powerful the level 5 Evasive Action perk is, and how unimportant the base ability of the skill is. Were I redesigning skills, I'd swap those - make it so each level of evasive action grants +7.5% maneuverability, and the level 5 perk is 50% reduced damage to engines. If this were a skill that people regularly put ten points in, someone would (hopefully!) have noticed this before now.
- "Deflection" (Evasive Action level 10 perk) now correctly reduces damage taken instead of doubling it. Ouch.
I'm pretty sure weapons set as "Strike" won't target fighters. (Or frigates? Not sure...) Could be mistaken, though, but there's at least something in the system that prevents the AI from, say, using torpedos against fighters.QuoteMmm, finally a pd hint that only makes it hit missilesYeah, that's great.
But are we going to get a similar flag to tell certain weapons not to engage those targets (unless the PD flag is set via script)? That's definitely on my wish-list, personally; tired of watching weapons try to kill drones instead of killing the mothership.
Does the fighter-PD state cover Drones as well? If not, it really should, since they have the same issues.
I'm pretty sure weapons set as "Strike" won't target fighters. (Or frigates? Not sure...) Could be mistaken, though, but there's at least something in the system that prevents the AI from, say, using torpedos against fighters.STRIKE causes the AI to use the weapon in pretty specific ways, unfortunately.
does that mean you have added tug boats?
It's nice to finally see some of those old ships in the graphics folder be put into the game. Especially interesting is how they're useful only in the campaign, rather than combat. Would be cool if you could find a way to re-purpose those munition ships in a similar way; I've always loved their sprites. Maybe they could give a fleet-wide CR bonus by providing efficient supply distribution, or something.
Also, any chance of a screenshot of the new star graphics?
And just wondering, would the Tug/ Navigation skills, only make ships travel between systems faster only? ( means uses fuel faster but gets there faster)
But are we going to get a similar flag to tell certain weapons not to engage those targets (unless the PD flag is set via script)? That's definitely on my wish-list, personally; tired of watching weapons try to kill drones instead of killing the mothership.
Does the fighter-PD state cover Drones as well? If not, it really should, since they have the same issues.
QuoteAdjusted base travel speed (increased)
Removed travel speed bonus for not being near a planet
Any special reason for this or just streamlining?
Does that result in a net increase or decrease of inter-planet travel speed?
QuoteAvailable in Askonia, other places
Oho!
QuoteRepair mechanics:
"Emergency repairs" fleetwide stat; starts at 5, supply use for these repairs doesn't affect logistics
Maximum total repairs performed (in supplies/day) are emergency repairs + unused logistics capacity (i.e. if "emergency repairs" are at 5, and the logistics use is 10/25, maximum total repairs per day are 20.)
When looking at the Logistics Rating, isn't that a tiny bit confusing? If I get this correctly, you could have 99% or even (just) 100% LR and your fleet could only do emergency repairs. Which is not what 100% LR would imply to a new player. Or can you somehow force your fleet to exceed the LR with repairs? Uh...or is that was it does normally, and you can forbid it?
What i wonder about - have you looked into convoys not delivering RESOURCE type resources to bases ( i mean those that are added through 'addItem')? And these RESOURCE type items are also not being salvageable, which is not good :)
Does this mean we can now change how the damage types work? Maybe make a ship where high explosive damage deals 200% to shields but only 50% to armor?
And this one, I think, speaks to how powerful the level 5 Evasive Action perk is, and how unimportant the base ability of the skill is. Were I redesigning skills, I'd swap those - make it so each level of evasive action grants +7.5% maneuverability, and the level 5 perk is 50% reduced damage to engines. If this were a skill that people regularly put ten points in, someone would (hopefully!) have noticed this before now.
- "Deflection" (Evasive Action level 10 perk) now correctly reduces damage taken instead of doubling it. Ouch.
Neat! And, yes, some way to separate armor and hull damage taken would be nice, but even just this opens up a lot of interesting options.Does this mean we can now change how the damage types work? Maybe make a ship where high explosive damage deals 200% to shields but only 50% to armor?
Hmm. This brings up an interesting point, the way these are set up affects *all* damage taken. Which isn't all that interesting; a hullmod such as "ablative armor" wouldn't want to reduce damage taken by shields, for example, and it seems that would come up in most cases.
So, just added:
MutableStat getBeamShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getMissileShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getProjectileShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getEnergyShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getKineticShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getHighExplosiveShieldDamageTakenMult();
MutableStat getFragmentationShieldDamageTakenMult();
And made the original methods apply to both hull and armor. Ideally, there'd perhaps be a way to separate armor and hull here too, but that's a little more involved.
That would be an interesting thread; for an example, I strongly prefer to use shield-tank-y ships, preferably with 360 degree shields, at which point... well, you can see how that would lead to feeling that the Evasive Action skill is only worth taking for its level five perk.And this one, I think, speaks to how powerful the level 5 Evasive Action perk is, and how unimportant the base ability of the skill is. Were I redesigning skills, I'd swap those - make it so each level of evasive action grants +7.5% maneuverability, and the level 5 perk is 50% reduced damage to engines. If this were a skill that people regularly put ten points in, someone would (hopefully!) have noticed this before now.
- "Deflection" (Evasive Action level 10 perk) now correctly reduces damage taken instead of doubling it. Ouch.
You know, they actually started out reversed. I don't think it'd make a difference to the overall power of the skill, though, since if you have 10 points in it, you have all the effects in either case.
I've got half a mind to start a new thread about the combat skills, to get a feel for if there's a general consensus about things being mandatory/not worth it... probably wouldn't get to any serious balancing for 0.6a, but it might be good to get that conversation started regardless.
Neat! And, yes, some way to separate armor and hull damage taken would be nice, but even just this opens up a lot of interesting options.+1; so glad to see armor / shield damage got separated out :)
Maybe. Definitely not in 0.6a, though.Bummer, really tired of watching slow turrets try to engage stuff they'll never hit while ignoring stuff they're designed to kill. I don't suppose STRIKE + USE_VS_FRIGATES could do that?
Well, there's also the overkill solution of writing your own autofire AI for those guns.QuoteMaybe. Definitely not in 0.6a, though.Bummer, really tired of watching slow turrets try to engage stuff they'll never hit while ignoring stuff they're designed to kill. I don't suppose STRIKE + USE_VS_FRIGATES could do that?
Ha, I have to check daily, it's my duty as a moderator. So, I'm not crazy for the game! It's not as if I just became a moderator because I was checking daily for updates anyway...somehow, when i read that, first thing that came to mind was "watch out guys, we have a tsundere mod over here"
To make checking a bit easier for everyone: Closed until the next update arrives.
glad to see the advances and improvements, loved playing this game and cant wait to return to try the new things, will have to make a thread later about how/where to download as well as i need to find my game key...
Up to 4/3/2/1 cables can be applied to capital ships/cruisers/destroyers/frigates at a timeDoes that mean you can boost 4 capital ships at a time? Or that a capital ship gets 4 to it's speed?
I don't suppose STRIKE + USE_VS_FRIGATES could do that?
Also monofilament sounds so awesome, haha.
I read it as the maximum number of tugboats that could be attached to a given ship size, with each individual tug providing a single cable.
Ox-class Tug: right, up to 4 can boost a capital ship.Hrm... not sure if should feel dumb now, haha. Thanks for the clarification, both of you. :)
Love that word. And "gantry", too.Haha, nice. I had to look that one up. :p
so considering their purpose does this make the tugs one of the fastest ships in the game currently? (not including strike craft)
Though this is from the older patch notes (the ones from July), I noticed the thing about weapons being used as decorative engine flares. Does that mean modders could create maneuvering thrusters on ships? So, if a ship turned left, all the "weapons" on the right side would fire and give the impression of thrusters turning the ship to the left, perhaps complemented by another set of "weapons" on the lower left side to push the flank around the ship's center of gravity?
Travel speed and combat speed are now completely separate - there's a "maximum burn" stat, a value from 1 to 10 that determines travel speed. Normal and hyper travel speed are at this point the same, though I can see adding a stat to differentiate those at some point.
I see what you're saying. Basically, 100% LR can mean a range of things, which is why there's also a bar indicating just how much logistics capacity is being used. 10/20 and 20/20 are both 100%, but the first one means there's 10 supply units worth of headroom. So, if you're at 20/20 (or above), only emergency repair are possible. If you're at 10/20, emergency + 10 repairs are possible.
First of all, the logistical situation in the fleet is reduced to a single number. How it got there is another matter, but it’s very easy to see how you’re doing at a glance.
This is probably going to sound stupid.
But are we actually allowed to download In-Dev updates to Starsector?
Not In Dev mods, but the stuff Alex is working on currently.
This is probably going to sound stupid.
But are we actually allowed to download In-Dev updates to Starsector?
Not In Dev mods, but the stuff Alex is working on currently.
You arent disallowed.
go ahead ::)
Mattk50's answer was entirely unhelpful - there is no such download to be found. We'll get .6 when it's ready, and not before.This is probably going to sound stupid.
But are we actually allowed to download In-Dev updates to Starsector?
Not In Dev mods, but the stuff Alex is working on currently.
You arent disallowed.
go ahead ::)
Edit; So does the download link for the client on the buy page not include the hyperspace changes etc? That's what I wanted to get a peak at
Then let me ask, Alex: Why not allow the LR rating to go above 100%? A value of more than 100% means that you've got repair capability to spare, exactly 100% means most likely that you are doing some heavy repair but are otherwise fine, and below 100% indicates a need to intervene.
You once wrote:QuoteFirst of all, the logistical situation in the fleet is reduced to a single number. How it got there is another matter, but it’s very easy to see how you’re doing at a glance.
Which I very much liked and which would be a shame to macerate into two numbers without real need.
I very much enjoy all this conversation around the new mechanics, but feel hopelessly out of touch with how they will actually work - I feel like on the wrong end of some joke - where everybody else is PRETENDING they know what they are talking about.
Basically, I can't wait to actually play it all and finally figure it out :D
Edit; So does the download link for the client on the buy page not include the hyperspace changes etc? That's what I wanted to get a peak atMattk50's answer was entirely unhelpful - there is no such download to be found. We'll get .6 when it's ready, and not before.
SpoilerIf I understand Alex's explanation of the logistics system, it isn't a percentage on repair systems alone, but the supplies used to support all the systems of a fleet. If you think of logistics from the standpoint of repair parts, food for crew, munitions for ship weapons and so forth, you can place a percentage of how efficiently these items are being distributed around the fleet.
A logistics rating of 100% would dictate that the crew is sufficiently moving all the fleet's resources for maximum effect around the current size of the fleet. A larger fleet would possibly increase fleet logistics capacity, while increasing the demands of the logistics system appropriately, requiring more crew to manage the efficiency of resource movement within a fleet. The actual percentage for fleet logistics would never go beyond maximum efficiency for current fleet and crew setup however.
I like this idea, a logistics rating tied to crew can mean that casualties really mean something if the fleet finds it harder to keep their ships operational due to lack of crew. Lose enough crew and your huge stockpile of supplies wont really matter, since it can't move on it's own.
Am I anywhere close to your ideal of a logistics system, Alex?[close]
Hi there!
You've mostly got it, though adding more crew doesn't improve your logistics rating - that's actually governed by your character's skills. Some crew is required to take advantage of the logistics stat, though - at the moment, that's set to 1 crew/marine per point. That represents needing people to coordinate stuff, pilot supply shuttles, that sort of thing. It's not exactly a major consideration, though, since almost any fleet is going to meet those requirements.
so considering their purpose does this make the tugs one of the fastest ships in the game currently? (not including strike craft)
No, they're on the lower end of the frigate class as far as speed, in both travel and combat. About the only frigate they might be hauling around is the Brawler.
Can we have a screenshop/concept art of the TUG? Wondering how its cables are represented.
This TUG seems to be designed to push rather than pull
This TUG seems to be designed to push rather than pull
Both is possible. It reminds me a lot of Homeworld's salvage corvette, which is capable of both pushing and pulling via the same mysterious energy field - or might it have been a matrix of monofilament strings all along?
It only works in the campaign, I doubt that it has any graphical representation there.
Both is possible. It reminds me a lot of Homeworld's salvage corvette, which is capable of both pushing and pulling via the same mysterious energy field - or might it have been a matrix of monofilament strings all along?Spoiler(http://shipyards.relicnews.com/kushan/salvage_corvette2.gif) (http://shipyards.relicnews.com/kushan/salvage_corvette5.gif)[close]
I'm more impatient for the curious features lined up for the next patch than anything else.
- I know the campaign map sticks in memory during combat, but how persistent are custom UI elements? Are they created once at game load and last for the whole session, or are they recreated after each battle?
- Will we be able to render things in combat, or is it campaign-only for now?
- You mentioned potentially adding code for text rendering a while back. Have you decided if that will be in for .6a?
- With the new fighter docking methods: can those be used outside of a custom AI implementation? Would it be possible to create decorative docking for things like cargo shuttles using them?
- Do loadjson/csv have the same merge behavior as the game's loader? Is there a way to load the entries from a certain mod directory only?
- If I'm reading the notes right, sector messages are now system-specific. Is there a way to broadcast directly to the player, or would we need to use sector.getPlayerFleet().getContainingLocation() to broadcast to the current system?
- I apologize as this one's more of a feature request than a question, but since we can't guarantee that a system's spawn points will be called on a certain frame, could we have a plugin with a universal advance() and access to this frame's InputEventAPIs? I suppose we could just use an invisible CustomUIPanelPlugin, but that seems a bit hack-ish.
- Is there a chance you'd be willing to release the new api.jar once you've reached the bugfixing stage and aren't adding any new features to .6a? While we wouldn't be able to test our work in-game, it'd be great to get a jump start on updating our mods with the massive API changes so they'll be ready when the update is released. :)
Will you have to manually assign tugs to ships? Or will it be automatic? (since the algorithm to do it automatically is trivially, just hook to the slowest ship in your fleet that can accept a tug and doesn't have too many tugs already connected)It's automatic, like you said. Slowest ship.
I don't see why not, with the caveat that things probably would change somewhat, since I tend to add some last-minute modding stuff before a release goes out.
Oh hey. Are these stats moddable? Does the level 5 helmsmanship perk improve speed while phased?
- Phase ships:
- +50 speed/improved acceleration while phased
Oh hey. Are these stats moddable? Does the level 5 helmsmanship perk improve speed while phased?
- Phase ships:
- +50 speed/improved acceleration while phased
Are there any plans to give AI commanders skill bonuses
Oh, your are working off some things that were going around on the forum for some time. Nice :) Glad to see the armor buff. The changes to the control scheme make sense, the only thing missing now is a instant fire option. Made up your mind on that yet?
But I?m still hoping we get something to fire guided missiles by only pressing the number key of the weapon group. So an option like auto-fire, but with a different effect.
Oh, and can we get a screenshot of the UI redesign?
Are there any plans to give AI commanders skill bonuses
Yes, there are long-term plans to do just that, but in what form (and if) it will happen is unclear.
Any chance we can see a OrbitalStationInteractionDialogPluginImpl and maybe get a couple of hints about how to build Dialogs via InteractionDialogAPI?
Also... does removeEntity() in LocationAPI mean that it's going to be possible to remove Stations from Planets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G7eDpMGe1k
Even with the nerf to the two OP increasing talents they're going to be mandatory. More OP is just way to good to pass up; it means not only better weapons but more hull mods/vents.
I'm not really sure how the talent system is going to ultimately pan out though, and maybe we're going to eventually max out all talents? If so, the problem isn't so bad and it'll simply dictate that we max those talents out earlier rather than later.
Also... does removeEntity() in LocationAPI mean that it's going to be possible to remove Stations from Planets?
Yeah, in theory. Not going to promise that it works because I don't think I've tested it. But if it doesn't, you'll just tell me and I'll fix it in the 0.6.1a release, right? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G7eDpMGe1k
It is a wonderful sight to see the patch notes start with miscellaneous. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G7eDpMGe1k
Thank god for Brawler buffs, by the way. What weapons are on the Elite variant? Maulers? I always found dual heavy MG + annihilator Brawlers to be surprisingly brutal once they actually catch something.
Thank god for Brawler buffs, by the way. What weapons are on the Elite variant? Maulers? I always found dual heavy MG + annihilator Brawlers to be surprisingly brutal once they actually catch something.
Mauler + HVD + 2x 1-shot Harpoon.
Also, per LazyWizard's earlier request, here's the current API source (http://www.fractalsoftworks.com/starfarer.api/starfarer.api.zip). It may still change between now and the 0.6a release, but major refactoring is unlikely.
Also... does removeEntity() in LocationAPI mean that it's going to be possible to remove Stations from Planets?
Yeah, in theory. Not going to promise that it works because I don't think I've tested it. But if it doesn't, you'll just tell me and I'll fix it in the 0.6.1a release, right? :)
I can foresee us adding a lot of sanity checks to our code to support this addition, especially for those mods with dynamic systems. :) Does fleet AI automatically compensate for their destination/resupply token being removed?
engine.ui.postmessage("MODNAME INITIALIZED!","MODNAME_INITIALIZED");engine.ui.postmessageex(String[] args,String ID,String Format);Is that two flight deck carrier gonna make it into the patch? If so, perhaps we could get a preview/spoiler? :D
Just checked entire API "source" and noticed zero options for game localization, large amount of strings emdedded into code and there is no option to hook it.
can rendering state\sprite be altered on stations and planets
Wish we could swap out Station graphics, but heck, this sorely tempts me to get rid of Stations entirely, if we can access the buy / sell interface via Dialogs and stock them with items / ships.
What about star? Can it be changed in realtime?
allow modded content to be localized while core stuff - like tooltips, buttons, etc - can't be.
Having a market hub that doesn't involve climbing out of a gravity well would certainly make sense from a perspective of space-economics, especially since most of our ships probably handle atmospheric flight about as well as the average brick.
They probably wouldn't be useful as a planetary defense platform themselves, since a planet in space could be attacked from any direction and they would thus be trivial to bypass, but they would be necessary as a servicing station for defense fleets full of non-atmospheric ships and would probably also serve as something of a fortified harbor against attacks at stellar operations.
Muhahhaha.. Muhahahahahahhahahahahahhaa (that was just Devil's laughter if someone would have problem to recognize it).. great news, thx.
It's pretty soon, guys :)
I want disco ball suns that provide the boogie all night long. There also needs to be an appropriate soundtrack for such a disco sun.
or stardrive, or starmade, or star citizen, or starprostatexamIt's pretty soon, guys :)
Hopefully before starbound or star command :/
I want disco ball suns that provide the boogie all night long. There also needs to be an appropriate soundtrack for such a disco sun.
A real pulsar flashes far more than your average disco ball. it would be perfect.or stardrive, or starmade, or star citizen, or starprostatexamIt's pretty soon, guys :)
Hopefully before starbound or star command :/
starsoon™
It's pretty soon, guys :)
It's pretty soon, guys :)
Oh man, I just got back into a groove with work too... you're totally going to sabotage me, aren't you?
It's pretty soon, guys :)Ahhh!
It's pretty soon, guys :)'Gasp!' :o I just realise his soon doesn't have a tm. This has to mean its the soon as is its close kind of soon instead of the indefinite kind of soon!
soon...
i will leave it here
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time
But I do disagree with the decision to combine so many major revisions into one patch. Understanding that some changes are interrelated, going through the dev notes it appears there was enough clearly delineated content to release in several incremental updates. And, given the business model in use here, Alex would likely have profited from doing so: it's not just these forums that have gone a bit quiet, it's the half-dozen other places on the Internet where this game is discussed (how I and likely many others found this great game). The modding community would also have benefitted, but we should applaud Alex for releasing the new API early.
soon...
i will leave it here
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time
I guess I just don't understand why this sort of *** is acceptable in the games industry. In my line of work, if a client is expecting something, we will put in 90, 100, 110 hours a week to make it happen. More if necessary and for months on end if need be. We are expected to give clear and realistic milestones for deliverables and move mountains to meet them. Internally, mistakes, delays and poor communication are punished harshly: you will get chewed-out on by your team and your performance comp will suffer. Excuses are not tolerated. Delays in getting production data from the engineering team? Deal with it. Client sends you their financials as outputs crookedly-scanned on a 1982 Xerox machine? Deal with it. There's a bug in your model and 20 pages in the presentation need to be redone? Hope you've stocked up on Red Bull because the meeting is still tomorrow at 9:00 AM.
I'm not saying this is ideal, or that it's resulted in a particularly happy or healthy lifestyle for anyone I know, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how the complete opposite is the norm in the software industry. Valve isn't the only offender, it's sadly par for the course at this point. Even when games do get finished, there are a lot of mainstream releases nowadays that are so buggy that if we put out something comparably shoddy, the entire team would be summarily fired.
I definitely agree that the current update cycle took too long.
I definitely agree that the current update cycle took too long.
I'm guessing Alex could rewrite everything in a fraction of the time he's spent actually creating it. The delta between the two is the cost of the creative process and that's the difference between apples and oranges.
I did not want to ask this just yet, but since we are on the topic: Do you suppose that the next update after 0.61b will hit release faster than 0.61a? Or should we prepare for a decelerated release cycle for, well, the rest of the development? I would imagine that the issue of this patch, heavily interconnected mechanics, only gets more pronounced as the game progresses towards completion.
Working overtime definitely hurts the end product in the long run, as one person can only do so much on one day before losing focus and starts making errors.
/sorryifeltlikerantingbecauseimanagedtoburnouttwiceinmylifetimealreadyduetoevilemployers
It's been a long wait, for sure, but (since Valve has been mentioned) then I've been waiting for Half Life 2 Episode 3 for years and I'm not complaining. If the update is good (and so far I don't see signs that it won't be), the wait will be worth it.
I definitely *want* to have a shorter release cycle, and will do my best to make that happen.
I believe you mean THQ? We HAD to be out of studio by 4pm. I always thought it was due to security with the current build data but now you mention it, we did have a lot more social time :)
Since we seem to be on the topic of the game development process: Alex, how do you feel about small projects like your own hiring more people as they become more successful? That is, people who would be up to their arms in coding and testing and coming up/implementing with new features rather than doing more independent work on commission. (I'm not saying you need to hire someone btw, just wondering :P) If I was running one it would be exciting to have faster completion and brainstorming, but I'd be worried about more and more time going into management and about losing creative control.
I definitely *want* to have a shorter release cycle, and will do my best to make that happen.
What is your opinion on dividing releases into stable and unstable builds? Unstable builds could be released only in the forum whenever a new feature is implemented, accepting all the untied ends and, well, instability.
They could help to counter some issues a long release cycle has. I'm not talking about simple impatience or fading interest here. I think many of us feel increasingly disconnected (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5813.msg106662#msg106662) with the current state of the next release, which means it gets harder and harder to understand and appreciate the new features you introduce in blogposts and patchnotes. That in turn means that it gets harder to utter constructive criticism, make suggestions or plan mods.
It been since march I'm waiting for this version to come out... Why does alex doesn't just release the thing at every new update? :(
@Alex:
I hear you on all that. I've always tried to adhere to Release Early, Release Often philosophies, even where I wasn't absolutely sure about QA, (and yes, that's bit me on the butt more than once, but a patch a few hours after a report, and I've found most people are pretty forgiving), but for things like this, where the kneebone's connected to the thighbone and so forth and so on, there isn't much you can do, other than say, "hey, I'm in the middle of all this, there is a plan and it's getting done".
It's never felt (from here) that you've had too much trouble with Kitchen Sink issues, which are typically where things crash and burn. I really think this was the big hump, but you've kept it manageable. It's never wise to bite something you can't even see the end of, you end up like that girl in the Shel Silverstein poem who ate the whale ;)
Unless I don't understand the mechanical changes under the hood, it should be possible to keep the release cycle shorter after this; I think you may underestimate just how many issues were made much more manageable by building dialog / UI-kit stuff, and I am glad you took up that model, it's a hugely powerful tool for fleshing things out.
After reading Alex's posts, it's pretty clear that a lot of thought has gone into the release strategy. I'm also getting increasingly hopeful due to the uses of past-tense...
Couldn't you have done that much homework before posting a rant? ;)
Anyhow, welcome to the Forums. We're usually nice :)
Am I reading it correctly that there TWO systems in the .6 candidate? I ask this in wondering if there's a technical issue to adding more systems and their interacting traffic or if you have only added one other system as POC? Is it feasible that Lazy Wizard's (Correct me if I'm wrong!) procedural generation code can generate on runtime a unique sector? Oh gods I hope so! :D
what JVM will be included with 060?
can i change JVM for my own without violating EULA?
Am I reading it correctly that there TWO systems in the .6 candidate? I ask this in wondering if there's a technical issue to adding more systems and their interacting traffic or if you have only added one other system as POC? Is it feasible that Lazy Wizard's (Correct me if I'm wrong!) procedural generation code can generate on runtime a unique sector? Oh gods I hope so! :D
It's definitely possible to add more systems. You might run into issues with the savegame file size w/o turning on save compression, though. The reason there aren't more in 0.6a is there's not really that much to do with them as a player (yet!), so...
Alex, that sounds like about a month of work remaining. Care to give at least a vague idea of how much time it has taken in the past to accomplish the amount of work you have left? As in "greater than a week, greater than 2 weeks, greater than a month.."
That way I won't bother to refresh the page every day or get my hopes up if the patch release is not imminent.
Man, and I thought I was being pessimistic with my "greater than a month" post.
This delay is starting to be seriously irritating. I've been checking this site out for months now, hoping for an update. If, last November, you had posted "working on next update, won't be around til next September", I wouldn't have spent all this time refreshing the site.
Being slow to update isn't nearly as bad as it being hugely uncertain when you will get to play the game you've been reading about for months.
Man, and I thought I was being pessimistic with my "greater than a month" post.
This delay is starting to be seriously irritating. I've been checking this site out for months now, hoping for an update. If, last November, you had posted "working on next update, won't be around til next September", I wouldn't have spent all this time refreshing the site.
Being slow to update isn't nearly as bad as it being hugely uncertain when you will get to play the game you've been reading about for months.
Also, a lot of the time I'll be working on one feature while waiting on some assets/internal feedback for another, and when things are interleaved like that, it makes for pretty efficient progress but, unfortunately, less clear "this is releasable" points. So what happens is before a release there's a period where I've stopped adding features, and switch to playtesting while waiting on some assets (which, incidentally, is the phase 0.6a is in now.) For unstable builds, the time currently spent playtesting would basically be wasted. Unless you create a code branch, but that's a considerable pain to deal with, and, again, takes more time.
"By my read..."
I don't think you really read it or understand development if you did.
He says they're doing some play testing while waiting for assets before work can resume. That doesn't mean that anything is complete.
Even if it did mean what it doesn't mean, feature complete is FAR from release complete. We have a good long wait to go if Alex keeps doing things right. I hope he does, and I don't think there's any indication that he's going to veer toward sloppy. I do worry that alpha access was granted far too early, and that giving these alpha builds the kind of spit shine that allows this kind of extremely early and frequent release structure may be bogging the process down. In fact, I really don't see how it couldn't have a huge impact on development time especially for a one man studio. I'm also concerned that the community might burn out before the game is even released! I mean, it's looking like probably another 8 months to a year for the full design scope discussed--at least.
I don't mind the wait because I avoid doing much more than tinkering about with new releases.
It's pretty soon, guys :)
I don't know, MShadowy's interpretation sounds pretty reasonable to me :)
Couldn't you have done that much homework before posting a rant? ;)
Anyhow, welcome to the Forums. We're usually nice :)
And here we see the release of a new version is shown to be detrimental to neurological processes of those who follow its progress. The most obvious symptom is the breakdown of grammar and rational speech.Spoiler:P[close]
Alendor, can you post it in the bugs section with 0.6a included the title? This way Alex has a nice overview of things. :)
Bugs can get burried when posted in a thread like this.
i'm running into another CTD seems to be related with being over maximum capacity of crew, and mousing over the crew bar on the bottom left of the screen
Hot tip: if you only have one ship, do not pick it up while on the fleet screen. It'll CTD. Will be hotfixing this shortly.
Spoiler(http://cdn.alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/surprised-omg-l.png)[close]
And it's out!
1572484 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.D - java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create nested lists using GLListManager
java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create nested lists using GLListManager
at com.fs.graphics.util.GLListManager.Object.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.J.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.O0OO.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.F.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.Z.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.D.O0oO.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.super.ôØ0000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.B.øÒÒ000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.super.super.new(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.D.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)Great News !!!
Many thanks ;-)
By the way, RSS feed do not update with this good news... so I miss 4 hours to play this evening but anyway I use them to play old fashion on v0.54a ;-)
And it's out!
I think my post about the new faction was as hidden as the announcement for the faction itself.
Anything you can say about them?
Where do you want feedback on the new stuff? Here or general discussion?
I absolutely LOVE the gigantic battle space. I always felt it was too small and crowded.
Very nice, Alex. I also love the planets present in battles. I swear they weren't there before. :)They most certainly weren't. It's nice to fight in orbit of a planet.
I also love the planets present in battles. I swear they weren't there before. :)
First impressions: love the UI for the most part, love the CR system, supplies are a little pricey, don't like not being able to see your fleet when buying ships and only transferring one ship at a time. can't play with fleet compositions as easily :-\
Minor notice: when a ship you're pursuing goes through the jump gate you don't lose target or follow them through you start going up and right on the map. maybe I'll take a really efficient ship and just let it follow until I find out what it's targeting lol
Ah, thank you! Hmm. Those look like modded ships on your side, are their deployment point costs really low? For some reason the campaign AI is thinking that it wants to fight, while the battle AI doesn't. Could be a bug, but looking at the code, it *should* properly account for mothballed ships (which would be another way this could happen, if the campaign AI assumed those were available for the fight.)Can confirm this with vanilla ...
As far as the fleet screen, I know what you mean. It was just a question of not being able to fit a side-by-side layout, given that the ship views are larger. (For quicker buying/selling, you can hover and press b->space or s->space, btw.)
BlaBla
BlaBla
Ok, just tried again.
They didn´t deploy their transports ( confirmed )
to win you have to "harass" them after the instant victory until they can´t deploy anymore. ( just deploy a single ship and hope you got enough readiness till the run out)
-> this is probably the bug
After that the last battle should follow where all enemy ships are retreating
@Alex:
Deployment points = Fleet points in the .csv file?
Then my ships are balanced, so nope. :)
As far as the fleet screen, I know what you mean. It was just a question of not being able to fit a side-by-side layout, given that the ship views are larger. (For quicker buying/selling, you can hover and press b->space or s->space, btw.)
Is there any way to upgrade your ship then? I only have one ship, I am 1.5k short of the ship I'd like to buy, but I can't because I can't buy the new ship and sell the old one at the same time.
I love this new update, the game runs smoother. And the new sound effects are awesome, firing all my PD guns in a Lasher sounds like music! ;D. The new backgrounds and UI look fantastic.
Could you possibly send me a vanilla save where this happens? (fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com). I just tried it vs a pirate plunder fleet - whittled it down to just Tarsuses and a bunch of mothballed ships. At that point, they wanted to retreat and I had the "pursue them" option, so it was working as it's supposed to in that case.sorry. I wasn´t clear enough i think :) the last battle is the "retreating battle" so this one works as supposed ( pursue )
I really like the higher prices for supplies. Higher upkeep and more micro management is what I'm enjoying. The early struggle keeps things interesting. Even with all these increased costs I'm still finding it way too easy to obtain new ships. I'd like to see their prices increased at least three-fold. But I realise that these things still have to be balanced out.
[edit]
I find myself taking supplies into consideration every time I am about to leave port. Am I going on a long voyage? Do I need a lot of supplies? Can I afford enough? Do I have enough fuel to make it back to Corvus?
These are all good things.
Could you possibly send me a vanilla save where this happens? (fractalsoftworks [at] gmail [dot] com). I just tried it vs a pirate plunder fleet - whittled it down to just Tarsuses and a bunch of mothballed ships. At that point, they wanted to retreat and I had the "pursue them" option, so it was working as it's supposed to in that case.sorry. I wasn´t clear enough i think :) the last battle is the "retreating battle" so this one works as supposed ( pursue )
the bug i think is that you can lose versus transports because they won´t deploy so you will/could run out of deploys before the enemy does.
Euh, Alex, regarding to that bug me and Chronosfear posted;
I wasn't aware new columns had been added to ship_data.csv. Is there a possibility it has to do with my ships lacking the CR to deploy?
I am amazed my mods work fine without all these columns by the way. Are they all optional?
Okay, that little bit of UI that shows up in the bottom left corner of the screen in the campaign view? Loving it.
I do have one complaint though. When looting after a battle, I've twice left without taking anything at all, despite dropping items into my inventory/cargo bay. I guess it's possible to leave the screen without hitting that confirm button.
The new UI is hideous.
I'm dead serious. It makes my eyes ache, it's so clunky and garish. I can't bring myself to play the new release today as a result.I have to agree with you there, minus the last part (I owe it to Dwarf Fortress for being able to manage). Granted I've only played a few hours so far, but the thing I really enjoyed about the previous UI was that it was easier to discern information at a glance. Now, with the new UI, I have to squint as I mouse over the relevant bits, which isn't fun when the dang icons are rather small and difficult to tell apart.
new UI is not good, i can't see reason why some fields hidden from me and i forced to visit cargo just to see how many cargo space left or why supply drain soo high/.
This update looks great, and I can't wait to try out all of the features. However, when I load a save, the game breaks (there are no sprites, I have no ship and the universe has come to a stand-still). Also, selecting 'no' on 'Exit game?' exits the game.
This update looks great, and I can't wait to try out all of the features. However, when I load a save, the game breaks (there are no sprites, I have no ship and the universe has come to a stand-still). Also, selecting 'no' on 'Exit game?' exits the game.
The new UI is BEAUTIFUL, but there is a lot of information there and the icons are too small, making it very hard to get used to. The build is very unstable for me as well, clicking my only ship in the fleet menu crashes the game, and when my only ship was destroyed during a boarding action the game crashed.
Exception from the log (both are "Can't create nested lists using GLListManager":Spoiler578322 [Thread-6] ERROR com.fs.starfarer.combat.D - java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create nested lists using GLListManager
java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create nested lists using GLListManager
at com.fs.graphics.util.GLListManager.Object.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.ui.J.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.impl.O0OO.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.F.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.coreui.Z.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.float.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.D.O0oO.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.oOo0.renderImpl(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.ui.public.render(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.campaign.super.ôØ0000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.B.øÒÒ000(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.super.super.new(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.combat.D.super(Unknown Source)
at com.fs.starfarer.StarfarerLauncher$2.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)[close]
- Planets in the background are awesome, but their rotation speed should be decreased. Days are flying by during combat!
- Planets in the background are awesome, but their rotation speed should be decreased. Days are flying by during combat!
are they? I thought they're practically instantaneous...
- What ever became of the instant flag ship change (if your flagship is not deployed)? That or the option to change it in the deployment box would be most useful. EG, I use different flagships for combat and pursue.
- Planets in the background are awesome, but their rotation speed should be decreased. Days are flying by during combat!
- It would look neater if ships with drones would deploy them only after their burn-phase is over. They look like mother ducks :)
- F1-help is quite the important function now, how about opening the box with a click on the UI element?
- A side-effect of the new ship sell/buy menu seems to be that you can't exchange your last ship for a new one like before. You know, if you don't have enough credits to buy it without the resell value of your current ship. Is that intentional?
my initial thoughts after playing to level 6: the new UI has promise, but needs work. Hyperspace works awesomely, the peak frigate operation time is silly and should just be applied to all ships (with various longer or shorter times) or not at all, and theres a weird bug where stacks of 0 crew can be moved around and bought which bugs your used cargo space to 0 too.
Anything more specific on the UI? Though that probably deserves its own thread.
- F1-help is quite the important function now, how about opening the box with a click on the UI element?
Not sure what you mean.
Also, when you mouseover each ship right now the only things that pop up (name, supply usage rate, percents) could easily just be there all the time, i don't know what the point of having that info only on mouseover is.
Extra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
QuoteExtra CR cost for using missile weapons in combat, based on ammo remaining
You might want to add a line to the after action report about how much missile use decreased the CR. If I hadn't remembered it from the patchnotes, I would have had no idea why my Lasher went from 64 to 39 instead of 44. Or did I overlook something?
Loving the new release. Keep up the great work! :)
Alt-F4 now close the game
btw how do i exit out of battles when the enemy is destroyed?
There is a god! ;D
Thank you so very much. :)
Oh good grief. I go Camping for 2 days and what happens, i miss the release day :'(. Bah oh well it was soooo worth the wait!
oh and side note, we broke the online record!
I feel like this makes frigates into something that you have many of, and call in what you need for the event, or continually cycle them in and out or something.Balencing with a sledgehammer more like...
Actually, im pretty sure it was entirely designed to balance the hyperion.
Hyperion,hyperion,Frigate,phaseteleporter,15,1000,100,3300,3500,280,60,175,175,150,120,480,150,FRONT,,300,0.6,0.6,,,5,15,10,25,0.5,50,7,22000,3,15,100,75,120,0.33,,202
To be fair, the hyperion kinda needed a sledgehammer to be brought into line with anything (without directly removing what makes it strong)
Unfortunately that is not a design decision I get to make. Feel free to write a mod to 'rebalance' it as you see fit though! seems pretty easy to do with a text editorTo be fair, the hyperion kinda needed a sledgehammer to be brought into line with anything (without directly removing what makes it strong)
Yeah, the rest of the frigate lineup didnt need the same treatment though.
Actually, im pretty sure it was entirely designed to balance the hyperion.
Here are my first impressions (that are overall positive, despite the fact that most of this post is critical). Great new sounds, mostly great UI improvements and a whole lot of new mechanics.
Regarding the new mechanics, the learning curve has steepened from a nice rolling hill to a mountain. For those who have been playing the previous versions to death and have followed/discussed the upcoming changes in the forums I'm sure it's manageable. For someone like me who lurks around and plays each new version for few hours, Starsector feels a lot more "gamey", even artificially so.
The first noticeable thing is the CR (and repair) related supply-burn that makes the first campaign tries quick peek-a-boo style events that force you to remain close to a station. I understand the reasoning behind this mechanic, but I think it will be more fun and approachable for a wider audience if in the beginning, when playing with only your first ship, the need for supplies would not be so massive. The management of the supplies could be introduced gently as the fleet gets bigger.
The high price of the supplies makes this world seem a bit like the mentioned fallout or mad max, which is fine, but combined with the higher burn rate of supplies is a bit of a shock initially.
Another CR related shock was the constant CR burn of the frigates during combat. The rate at which CR drops is way too high to my liking and I would enjoy the game more without this added mechanism. I see the CR as an abstract concept that works on the campaign-level where time moves very fast, but during combat (which is a matter of minutes/hours) it does not make that much sense. It feels artificial and unnecessary. CR could drop with hull damage, leading to higher possibility of breakdowns, but not constantly with time. With small fighters it does make sense, but frigates make me think craft like millenium falcon that should be able to sustain themselves for extended periods.
As an example I flew with a lasher and encountered two hounds. I tried to run away, but was caught. In combat I faced one hound, which I destroyed quite easily (no hull damage to me), though it took some time as the hound was faster and could choose when to engage me. Then nothing happened. I took over all sensors/buoys thinking that might end the fight, but still nothing happened. Then my CR went to 0 and my ship started to malfunction continuously and apparently then the AI deploys the other hound as I start to lose control of the control points.
Proper request: Is it going to be difficult for you to arrange for wing reinforcements to launch from a random in-battle flight-deck instead off from the edge of the map like normal backup? As a carrier ***, I don't like dropping the kids off before going to work (so to speak) ;D
I'd like to deploy a picket screen with assets on alert but that would be a two-stage process for CR use. I'll settle for 150% CR drop for any alert wings launched during battle from a flightdeck though :D
Thanks for the feedback! Always good to hear the perspective of someone that's less "in" it. Definitely agree about the learning curve, and it's a concern. Not entirely sure how much can be done about it, aside from adding some introduction-style section for the campaign.*cough* trading/mining mechanics *cough* frigate vs. frigate combat is the fastest and hardest piloting in the game, and from what friends who i've had try the game tell me, people always just get stuck in a loop of fighting and dying when they start. They go after individual pirate frigates, and even if they win twice if they lose the third they effectively need to start over from a credit standpoint.
Does the CR drop affect enemy frigates in battle also? Your own CR drop would be more justified that way, same way I wouldn't want to see the enemy with unlimited missiles and ammo.
*cough* trading/mining mechanics *cough* frigate vs. frigate combat is the fastest and hardest piloting in the game, and from what friends who i've had try the game tell me, people always just get stuck in a loop of fighting and dying when they start. They go after individual pirate frigates, and even if they win twice if they lose the third they effectively need to start over from a credit standpoint.
If there were price differences between prices in stations to take advantage of or mining in some form was implemented, people without extremely good piloting skills in a game they've never played before wouldnt feel so left out
I feel like the best way to address early difficulty is to simply allow for more sedate play options.
I'd like a choice between the daily grind of trading/mercantile pursuits and the thrill/immediate reward of managing to attack and salvage someone.
Allowing less combat-ready players a chance to build up a little nest egg and start getting into it with people with a more powerful fleet behind them would differentiate play styles, and serve as a sort of cushion for people. It would also emphasize that if you DO manage to take yourself from shuttle to dreadnaught with nothing but skilled piloting you're probably really cool.
(Alex, do you care to comment here on whether fighter supply is working as intended, slightly broken and will be rebalanced, or actually bugged and will be calculated differently? There's maybe a couple of threads about it in suggestions or bug reports also, if here isn't the best place)
Overall though I'm really enjoying the new release - I haven't found it unduly difficult, if anything it's easier as well chosen fights can now provide a lot more credits a lot quicker through selling supplies, but there are probably more potential pitfalls if you do start failing too much. I love the new logistics changes in general... the UI is okay, sometimes I preferred the old one (buying/selling ships is the main one), and I've no idea why the F1 tips aren't just always there, or indeed why the full logistics panel doesn't always display - can we get those as toggle options perhaps? All in all though, worth the wait!
You put those elite brawlers in to demonstrate that the AI knows perfectly well when to use kinetic and when HE, din't you Alex? I'm so dead, again...
Oh, and a question: Is there really no way to suspend CR regeneration (except for fighters)? Why?
SpoilerSome thoughts on the new stuff:
- When I have too few crew for my ships, there's no single number that says "this is how many more crew you need". You can get it, it just takes realizing you need to mouse over the personel indicator on the tiny little fleet info in the lower right
- I like the summary fleet info in the lower right, but there should probably be a first-class UI page for all that information broken out it's so critical to what your doing (rather than having to hit F1 for each of the individual elements). Maybe that would scare people who don't like number, but in SS if you're not paying attention to numbers you're going to have a bad time.
- The skill that gives you a "Burn" increase, it's description isn't clear what you'll get by investing in it for more than just the next level. For example, if I'm at level 4 and I really want another +2 to destroyer speed, I'm not sure if I'll ever get that by investing all the way to level 10. I need some sort of road map to help me plan allocation here.
- Again with the Burn speed skill, a "key" for the "X/X/X/X" portion would be helpful for people who haven't played the game a ton. Just a simple "Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser/Capital" would do.
- Maybe move some skills that are desirable to leadership (like the navigation related ones), right now the only really valuable one seems to be logistics. Maybe add a skill that increases max CR by 1% per level? It feels like all of the Must Have skills are in Tech.
- I wish the larger weapons sounds had more bass, the weapon sounds lack 'heft'
- The Cargo screen is misleading, it's called 'your cargo' but really only a few things in there are actually 'cargo'. Fuel should probably just be a slider on the right indicating how much you've got, vs how much you can properly carry. Personnel should be an icon & counter on the left for each of the types (marines and skill level), then the actual cargo-cargo in the middle. It would be nice to have your max cargo capacity near the actual cargo 'area' but maybe that's because of my high rez.
- A pipe dream of mine, and those with big monitors in general would be to have a UI scalar, say make everything 120% of normal so I don't have to squint.
[close]
Thanks for the feedback - can't quite respond in detail write now, but wrote a couple of things down :)
I've been testing the new release all day, and I just had my first serious negative experience. It went a little something like this...
- My fleet is comprised of an Aurora(flagship) a Lasher, and about 5 wings of talons
- Attack pirate supply fleet with a mothballed Conquest that I'm very interested in
- First fight goes about as expected, only my flagship and the Lasher make it out alive, but the pirate fleet is in ruins
- The pirates turn around and attack with their supply ships (Tarsus x4)
- As soon as the fight starts they retreat. My lasher and Aurora suffer a CR hit, and the lasher is now unuseable in combat
- The pirates attack with the Tarsus group again, again I send in the Aurora, again they retreat as the fight starts
- Repeat one more time, my Aurora is no longer able to fight
- The pirate fleet leave with their mothballed ships and 4 Tarsus freighters
I never had a chance to fire a single shot against the supply ships. They didn't fight, they just attacked, ran and drained my CR. There was no chance to try to take them out in a pursuit action, because they didn't flee, they just abused the CR mechanic.
Definitely agree about the learning curve, and it's a concern. Not entirely sure how much can be done about it, aside from adding some introduction-style section for the campaign.
Glad you brought this up, especially the example. That fight really shouldn't have objectives in it, which I think is the bigger problem here. You ended up with a bigger map and a spread-out enemy fleet when only 3 ships were involved. (I think the AI actually deployed both Hounds at once, one of them just, ah, got lost.) Will change it so that whether the battle has objectives depends on the size of the smaller fleet in the encounter.
Regarding the new mechanics, the learning curve has steepened from a nice rolling hill to a mountain. For those who have been playing the previous versions to death and have followed/discussed the upcoming changes in the forums I'm sure it's manageable. For someone like me who lurks around and plays each new version for few hours, Starsector feels a lot more "gamey", even artificially so.
Thanks for the feedback! Always good to hear the perspective of someone that's less "in" it. Definitely agree about the learning curve, and it's a concern. Not entirely sure how much can be done about it, aside from adding some introduction-style section for the campaign.
After playing some more I noticed how the frigate CR-bleeding starts only after couple minutes, but then the rate is in the order of 1% per second which is really, really fast. Do you think that the frigate CR-drop during longer battles works as intended or do you have plans to modify it? I still think that the ship that you start with should not have this feature.
I've got a dumb question. I think I read it somewhere, but I am unsure.
Upon loading a save game mods (more specifically my mods) have duplicated all planets. This is a bug and it's nothing that can be helped, right? :-X
I'm liking this new release, but I'm having stability issues. Whenever my fleet is destroyed and have to respawn in a new starter ship, I encounter a fatal error which closes down the game.
The log file is linked here: http://filesmelt.com/dl/starsector.log (http://filesmelt.com/dl/starsector.log)
Question: What exactly plays into the calculation that determines if a battle was "hard-fought"?
Regarding the new mechanics, the learning curve has steepened from a nice rolling hill to a mountain. For those who have been playing the previous versions to death and have followed/discussed the upcoming changes in the forums I'm sure it's manageable. For someone like me who lurks around and plays each new version for few hours, Starsector feels a lot more "gamey", even artificially so.
Thanks for the feedback! Always good to hear the perspective of someone that's less "in" it. Definitely agree about the learning curve, and it's a concern. Not entirely sure how much can be done about it, aside from adding some introduction-style section for the campaign.
Perhaps a "newbie" system to let people dive off the deep end from? Generally smaller pirate fleets, no HSDFs, no TTSDs, just a few light patrols and a "so here's what these buttons do, 'kay? 'Kay, have fun." tutorial that teaches all the basics of CR, logistics and such.
I'm liking this new release, but I'm having stability issues. Whenever my fleet is destroyed and have to respawn in a new starter ship, I encounter a fatal error which closes down the game.
The log file is linked here: http://filesmelt.com/dl/starsector.log (http://filesmelt.com/dl/starsector.log)
Hmm - that looks like the bug that was fixed by the [urk=http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/09/13/starsector-0-6a-release/hotfix, RC4[/url]. Do you still have RC1, perhaps?
By the number of deployment points worth of disabled/destroyed ships the standing down side inflicted on the enemy, relative to how many deployment points it had deployed. It might make more lore "sense" to base it on the damage taken, but the goal here is to prevent "deploy a Hound, retreat, enemy Onslaught takes CR hit" style harassment. So, basically, a large ship can effectively ignore frigate harassment unless the harassers committ to enough of a fight to suffer significant losses. The AI will use "stand down", too
does that mean you can deploy hound, retreat, force standdown, then retreat without pursuit?
Mught be potential exploit there... will test it out when i get home
found a bug with the astral and the dagger bombers not sure if its just these but anyways what happened was after a very long fight using about 15-20 wings of fighters and bombers vs the heg def fleet, the dagger bombers would continuously dock and take off from the astral never getting to the point where they can be targeted or reloading their bombs.
I happened upon a bug in the Hegemony base cargo / crew purchase interface.
There were duplicate stacks for every crew rank all at 0 counter. Ctrl + click a 0 stack replaces your own stack by 0, making you lose your current crew.
Buying more crew from a proper stack is okay, unless you Ctrl + click it or sort your cargo.
Also, while in space, I could Ctrl + click any 0 stack, and from the jettison screen Shift + click a 0 stack making it a functional 1 stack. The original 0 stack was still left in the cargo.
But then we can just splash a talon at them and turn tail with the rest of our fleet, right?
2400 for a retreat can be quite cheap depending on the situation
One thing that I am missing is "cargo bay" modifications that would allow you to trade combat efficiency for extra space. I'm of course thinking about Hound-transports :)
Pardon my ignorance here but I didn't see this in the patch notes. Is the longbow support fighters supposed to be in yet? Last I heard it was still being balanced.
Then the AI would also have to worry about not over deploying too... Not sure if they do right now, but that would work better I feel....
I was asking because I saw one in the askonia station, but there had been not mention of addin it.Pardon my ignorance here but I didn't see this in the patch notes. Is the longbow support fighters supposed to be in yet? Last I heard it was still being balanced.
a quick look through the code says it's not in yet... I could be wrong though
* Question: How much more effective are marines than crew? They eat so many supplies that unless they have greater than 10 to 1 effectiveness, I would rather use crew instead. At least having lots of crew means I can level more of them up and ignore the skill that speeds up crew level gain.
[TYVM, for both the prompt reply, and explanation! You constantly amaze me with the levels of PR you do, as well as the work!
@Auraknight: thanks - this is fixed for the next release, 0.6.1a. Both problems are due to the 0-size crew stacks.
It's too intuitive that this should be the case that what we are experiencing here is a bug... The enemy decision to join instead of escape is IMHO at the cause of this decision tree failure, not your sustained engagement mechanic
* Wasps cost too much - 9 compared other fighters' 2 or 3.
* Frigate swarms are still viable and may be even more effective than before...
* Wasps cost too much - 9 compared other fighters' 2 or 3.
* Frigate swarms are still viable and may be even more effective than before...
This is particularly true in the case of the Wasp vs. the Hound. One formation of Wasps uses 9.0 supplies/day, and 9 crew. You can field almost the same number of Hounds for that kind of logistics. One Hound is 1.0 supplies/day, but requires 10 crew. I haven't actually tested this but I would surmise that you could have 6 or 7 hounds + 60 to 70 crew for the same logistical impact as the one wasp squad. That feels pretty ridiculous. Wasps should impact logicistics less. So should the Talon interceptors. They're so pathetically weak, yet cost 4.0 supplies. I feel they should impact logistics like 0.5 or 1.0 given how weak they are. I don't mind the supply cost, it's the logistical impact. It should be analogous to the deployment points or something. I dunno.
Thoughts, Alex?
Quick question, why has "A" for quick-repair gone away?
I see neutral traders in my sector. Does the AI find modded systems itself? Will pirates enter modded systems?
That's awesome, Alex! I was afraid this had to be scripted per every mod.
Loving the update. especially the sounds now. But this CR thing has to be fixed. Player controlled ships sputter out way too fast. Extend it or just get rid of it. Making it less fun IMO.
After playing with the new CR mechanic for a couple days, I can definitely see the thought that has gone into it. I'm sure with a round or two of tweaking you will find that sweet spot you are looking for regarding game balance. It has had the intended effect on my play style, for sure.
For example, I keep as many ships in reserve as I can in any given engagement, instead of what I used to do which was steamroll everything with my entire fleet at every opportunity. The multi-round battles are also a very logical change, and I find I am thinking ahead further in my strategies. All good stuff to be doing, and I feel more like a proper admiral than before :)
But then we can just splash a talon at them and turn tail with the rest of our fleet, right?
2400 for a retreat can be quite cheap depending on the situation
You'd still get harried, and that'd likely cost you considerably more than 2.4k. Really, "deploy one ship and retreat it right away w/o fighting" is what's bad. If you deploy one Talon wing and actually have it fight, to me that's an acceptable rear-guard action.
If the point of the rear-guard is to buy time, then why not model that into the scenario? Maybe you have to hold a command point for two minutes or the ship is lost for it to be effective. If you can hold it with a hound *and* escape then more power to you. That hound just saved the fleet.
"engine_loop":{
"sounds":[
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1}, # index: 0
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 1
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 2
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 3
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_01_lotek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 4
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1},# index: 5
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 6
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 7
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 8
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_02_midtek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 9
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_00_fighter.ogg","pitch":0.67,"volume":1}, # index: 10
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_01_frigate.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 11
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_02_destroyer.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 12
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_03_cruiser.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 13
{"file":"sounds/sfx_engines/engine_03_hitek_04_capital.ogg","pitch":1,"volume":1}, # index: 14
],Yes, that makes much more sense than an instant-win objective. A delaying action shouldn't be an artificial mechanic. What an odd proposition.
Ships delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50, items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100
First post :)
QuoteShips delivered to stations will randomly replace ships already at the station if the total number exceeds 50, items delivered to stations will randomly replace stacks already present at station if the total number exceeds 100
I think this is the cause of some problems, items in stations have been replaced by huge amounts of supplies and fuel, and the hegemony station has barely two rows of equipment. Supplies are much easier to get from a random pirate than to buy too, so it never really decreases. Rare ships also get replaced by unwanted, for example the neutrino mod: A single Unsung and a few of the new capitals are there in the beginning in a good mix and so on, but by the time they can be afforded they are all gone, and will not be replaced. Might be more of a trouble in the mod, but the point stands.
Is it intentional for the hegemony defense fleet to deliver damaged, mothballed ships to the station when it resupplies? Its pretty cool.
Because of supplies being so expensive now the game has gotten easier, and with a little patience you can afford a paragon in no time by staying close to stations and immediately sell looted supplies that a far above cargo hold. Just a few attacks on lone destroyers in a hound can net you enough to jump into Tri-tachyon destroyers, and after that currency quickly become worthless as you raid supply fleets with stacks of supplies worth 80k each without a single transport ship, because you have more than enough time to dock and sell it before any accidents.
There are no clear way to view how much logistics a ship takes, the old way with a number on each ship was much better instead of replacing it with a subtle supplies/day.
It would be nice if crew experience would be displayed in the "battlescreen" instead of afterwards, and where is crew losses?
For some reason hostile fleets are much more passive around me than before, I can just fly right through fleets that are more than happy to fight me, and doesn't keep aggression long at all. Once a pirate fleet decided to pursue me only to immediately switch to a trader far away. Only if they are much smaller or bigger than my own will they do something else than to ignore my existence.
Alex, how does the AI decide if your fleet is so big it needs to run away?
Fleets the same size as mine in combat craft always try to run. Is it always looking for that 2x advantage? Or do the civilian craft count?
Not entirely. Perhaps the AI decides to mothball some of its damaged combat ships along the way? I'm not actually sureIts the whole fleet, instead of resupplying, it docks and I can buy damaged onslaughts and a new one will appear after a while. It still calls it resupplying though.
Trying it out and here are my thouths:Easy mode CR (https://www.dropbox.com/s/c20qhus87oikb46/ship_data_ezmode.csv). All ships cost 1 supply per day, all ships cost 1 CR to deploy. CR is now irrelevant, carry on as you did in 0.54.
ive got now middle size fleet and EVERYONE is avoiding me. i cant catch up to them and im losing supplie sooooooo fast that im forced into buying it or selling off my ships just to stay alive >.<
Either the price of suplies is way too big or the suplies lost due to low CR is wayyyyyyy toooooo biiggggggg !!!!
hotfix pls :)
It's based on total deployment points, but it's not too big a gap, much less than double. Civilian craft do count.That's ... somewhat unfortunate, given that the player needs them, but the vast majority of enemy fleets do without them, on account of they don't actually have to store loot for moneys.
I love the update so far, it's a joy to play....eventually...after you get past the initial learning curve of the new CR system and having myself spanked by other pirates...anyway
It's based on total deployment points, but it's not too big a gap, much less than double. Civilian craft do count.That's ... somewhat unfortunate, given that the player needs them, but the vast majority of enemy fleets do without them, on account of they don't actually have to store loot for moneys.
Its also rather counter-intuitive. They're civilian craft, they can't fight worth a damn, therefore they're counted as battle strength?
I don't think anyone's ever called off a battle on account of the enemy's impressive array of cargo trucks ...
In other news, CR-related, shield-ships should use more supplies... the gap between escaping unscathed and choosing to use and take armor damage which then needs repaired plus CR raised is a bit high. Also, while initially i was worried about supply, without going full-out-insane-fleet i can breezily go through the game from all the captured supplies.
is the sunder-class supposed to be ultra rare? ive played for a few cycles, and i only saw one at the very start of the playthrough when mysteriously disappeared after awhile. and ive been waiting for about 3 cycles and having seen a single one, ive checked all 4 orbital stations, even the tri-tachyon one, im pretty sure sunder-class cant be sold from there, from pass experience before 0.6.I find them most often in the station in the new system with the name that escapes me right now, but yeah they're hard to get. High intensity laser too, on average half an hour of checking stations to fund one.
Ive literally seen multiples of every single class hulls sold and not a single Sunder, am i just unlucky?
If you use and use more than a couple of any ship class, it becomes very rare. I have sunders in my stations but if i lost a few then they wouldnt get restocked for a very long time. Its the same with other ships i like using, esp the apogee.
is the sunder-class supposed to be ultra rare? ive played for a few cycles, and i only saw one at the very start of the playthrough when mysteriously disappeared after awhile. and ive been waiting for about 3 cycles and having seen a single one, ive checked all 4 orbital stations, even the tri-tachyon one, im pretty sure sunder-class cant be sold from there, from pass experience before 0.6.I find them most often in the station in the new system with the name that escapes me right now, but yeah they're hard to get. High intensity laser too, on average half an hour of checking stations to fund one.
Ive literally seen multiples of every single class hulls sold and not a single Sunder, am i just unlucky?
Just to clarify: will all mods' ModPlugin.onNewGame() be called, or just the one pointed to from newGameCreationEntryPoint? Is there still an equivalent to replacing generators.csv with this new system?
onNewGame() will be called for all mods. newGameCreationEntryPoint just points to SectorGen. Which also includes registering a core implementation of the CampaignPlugin and some other stuff.
The order things are called in when a new game is created is:
newGameCreationEntryPoint.generate()
.generate() for everything in generators.csv (only there for some degree of backwards compatibility)
plugin.onNewGame(); for every ModPlugin
The equivalent to replacing generators.csv (which is something only a TC would do, right?) would be to point newGameCreationEntryPoint to another implementation of SectorGenerationPlugin.
- I'm a bit split about CR. I think it is definitely the right direction to go in and I am thrilled by all of its effects on a battle. I love the deployment gamble and the ability to call in reinforcements (or rather that there is reason to have additional ships not join in the beginning). But I feel like part of the implementations on the campaign level are just too complicated. I mean, there are three totally different mechanics for how Logistic Capabilities are influenced by crew, ships and repairs. Not that I'm seeing a better way, but I'll keep thinking.
- The Campaign-UI needs to be shifted a bit towards supply consumption and its implications, but is overall a job well done. I only noticed today the 0% LR background shifting color more and more towards red, very cool.
- The new planet backgrounds like in "Dire Straits" are really good looking. Almost too good, nebula and asteroids seem a bit flat in comparison. Do you have any long-term plans for more background objects like asteroid fields, nebulas or planet rings? (BTW, "The Last Hurrah" really needs to show the planet you're protecting!)
SpoilerJust to clarify: will all mods' ModPlugin.onNewGame() be called, or just the one pointed to from newGameCreationEntryPoint? Is there still an equivalent to replacing generators.csv with this new system?
onNewGame() will be called for all mods. newGameCreationEntryPoint just points to SectorGen. Which also includes registering a core implementation of the CampaignPlugin and some other stuff.
The order things are called in when a new game is created is:
newGameCreationEntryPoint.generate()
.generate() for everything in generators.csv (only there for some degree of backwards compatibility)
plugin.onNewGame(); for every ModPlugin
The equivalent to replacing generators.csv (which is something only a TC would do, right?) would be to point newGameCreationEntryPoint to another implementation of SectorGenerationPlugin.
Sorry to dredge this up from ages ago, but was having a bit of a think about this today :)
Is there a way where if two mods are loaded side by side, one mod can disable the other mods generator(s)?
Prior to 0.6, this could be accomplished by overriding generators.csv (via mod_info.json:replace), thus disabling any other mod from running it's generator code. Now, mods can specify ModPlugin in mod_info.json, which essentially replaces the purpose of generators.csv. Is there a way to stop it from running plugin.onNewGame() for every ModPlugin?
NOTE: I want to do this in a non-TC way. I realise this is somewhat un-conventional but I thought the previous method was pretty neat.[close]
Alex, what if you made it so enemy fleets decide to make a last stand if you're faster than them and have harried their retreat once or more? Later on, you could add campaign fleet AI that would weigh their chances of making it to a friendly fleet or station before being harried to death.
By the way, about supply costs, for present game balance wouldn't it be easier to reduce the price of supplies to close to what it was before, but reduce the amount of money provided by defeated fleets? You could also make supplies have a poor resale value. Considering that supplies are supposed to be assembled (either from a store or a wreck) for the needs of your fleet specifically, selling off a large quantity of them would be the interstellar equivalent of a yard sale. It seems like one of those would be easier than redoing the prices for everything else, which are about where they need to be relative to each other. It's all about relativity.
-snip-
The reason for the dislike? Supply/CR. It goes something like this. Game starts, pirates chase me down, single ships usually though once was a larger group. Fight because I have to. Mostly win, some others lost. Fight over back to sector screen. Supplies consumed in moments, no money for more. More pirates incoming so run for life. Supplies dry up in under a minute. 30 seconds and 3 accidents later, game over. 11 times.
-snip-
Supplies consumed in moments, no money for more. More pirates incoming so run for life. Supplies dry up in under a minute. 30 seconds and 3 accidents later, game over. 11 times.
Likely the problem does lie with me but I just do not find this to be fun any longer. Either the supply consumption rates are much higher than I remember or accidents are just far too common and far too punishing (for my personal liking) at the very start of a new game.
Top tip for 0.6a players that have the enemy fleeing on them a lot.
Alex! Now it's time to move onto Steam Greenlight!
Alex! Now it's time to move onto Steam Greenlight!
Someone suggested this to Alex on Twitter, saying it was ready for Greenlight or Kickstarter and his reply was:
"Greenlight: I don't feel it is quite yet. Kickstarter: it's a ton of work not spent on the game; not needed atm."
I'm assuming Kickstarter is probably not necessary, and that he would like to get more features into the game before heading over to Steam.
Releasing it on Steam Greenlight would be the equivalent of throwing Starsector to the hounds.
"i kno this game is beta but it sux i cant kil anything and CR is ***. one battle and all my money is gone wtf???!!eleven!1!"
*totally offtopic*Releasing it on Steam Greenlight would be the equivalent of throwing Starsector to the hounds.
"i kno this game is beta but it sux i cant kil anything and CR is ***. one battle and all my money is gone wtf???!!eleven!1!"
this ^
starsector deserve better than kickstarter or steam greenlight