Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Blog Posts => Topic started by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 12:02:44 PM

Title: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 12:02:44 PM
Blog post here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/03/30/fleet-encounter-mechanics-part-1/).
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: theSONY on March 30, 2013, 12:06:22 PM
Do you have this feeling that  you are looking for something that isn't there ?
 i do :P
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 12:07:33 PM
I have to put the thread up about a minute before the blog post so I can link to it from the post (the url of the blog post, on the other hand, is known prior to it being published). Congratulations on clicking on it during that one minute :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Sproginator on March 30, 2013, 12:09:07 PM
ME TOO!
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: jimy on March 30, 2013, 12:20:09 PM
Awesome! Can't wait for part 2. :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: theSONY on March 30, 2013, 12:22:16 PM

Spoiler
(http://fractalsoftworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/engagement_won.jpg)
[close]
You decideto... harry ??? the retreating enemy forces ??
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Sproginator on March 30, 2013, 12:22:52 PM
I can't see that! WHERE IS IT!?!?
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 12:29:05 PM
Harry (https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aharry).
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: FloW on March 30, 2013, 12:35:38 PM
Quote
coming sometime next week, and talking about travel drive, the “escape scenario”, and boarding.

... You have my interest.
Proceed.

Edit: Have to say, "Harry" is correct, but isn't used that often. "Harass" would probably work better, and iirc there is a command in battle called "Harass"?
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: theSONY on March 30, 2013, 12:36:25 PM
not THIS Harry. (https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aharry) Alex-_-'
the Henderson (https://www.google.pl/search?q=harry+the+henderson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a) ;P
 but seriously i somehow don't get that sentence from the picture "harry the retreating enemy forces"
i dunno maybe this is just my lack of English, but i'm not familiar with word "harry" if not a name
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: arcibalde on March 30, 2013, 12:42:12 PM
Blog post here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/03/30/fleet-encounte…chanics-part-1/).
Im getting this: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/03/30/fleet-encounte%E2%80%A6chanics-part-1/

when i click on that link and i want this (right?):
http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/03/
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 12:44:55 PM
Ah, sorry about that - thanks for clarifying. Fixed.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: arcibalde on March 30, 2013, 01:05:52 PM
Let them go
The losing side gets away without any repercussions. Not much reason to let them do so at the moment, but it might come into play when reputation is an issue, or if you simply want to leave the enemy fleet combat-capable for some devious reason of your own.

I like this  ;D


And as for new engage mechanic it does sound good on paper so i can't wait to see it in action.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Aklyon on March 30, 2013, 01:10:39 PM
Sounds interesting.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Sproginator on March 30, 2013, 01:11:08 PM
A very interesting update there Alex, So, When are we having multiple systems? Ahaa :P
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: NikolaiLev on March 30, 2013, 01:22:15 PM
Another interesting read, Alex.  One thing I noticed is that you're very concerned about "gameing" the system.  Exploiting the mechanics in an artificial way.  This is a very good philosophy regarding game mechanics.  But, I have one concern:

Is it going to be possible to use hit-and-run tactics with a smaller fleet to grind down a large opposing fleet?  This is something I was very much looking forward to when strategic aspects like this came into play, but from what I'm seeing this might not be at all possible or feasible.

Eventually, if played carefully, a smaller fleet should be able to carefully whittle down an opposing fleet, but it shouldn't have to be ship-by-ship.  Maybe CR should be deducted according to damage taken (or is this already the case?)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
Another interesting read, Alex.  One thing I noticed is that you're very concerned about "gameing" the system.  Exploiting the mechanics in an artificial way.  This is a very good philosophy regarding game mechanics.  But, I have one concern:

Is it going to be possible to use hit-and-run tactics with a smaller fleet to grind down a large opposing fleet?  This is something I was very much looking forward to when strategic aspects like this came into play, but from what I'm seeing this might not be at all possible or feasible.

Eventually, if played carefully, a smaller fleet should be able to carefully whittle down an opposing fleet, but it shouldn't have to be ship-by-ship.  Maybe CR should be deducted according to damage taken (or is this already the case?)

Fun question :)

For a smaller fleet trying to whittle down a large one, I think the most viable way would be indirect, by disrupting its lines of supply - supposing that's an option and the large fleet isn't operating in home territory within easy reach of friendly bases.

There is some CR deduction for having weapons/engines disabled in combat (applied afterwards), so that could be a way to do what you're describing. Really, though, if you're at a point where you're dealing significant enough damage to achieve that, you're probably also at a point where you could take down the whole ship.

On the whole, being able to grind down a fleet without facing its ships in battle is something to be very careful of. If the design allows that, then it might also allow bypassing battle altogether if whatever strategies explicitly allow for that are taken far enough. If they're longer term and take time to play out in the campaign, that's one thing. If they consist of just carefully selecting options in the encounter dialog, that's another thing entirely.

I've also got some vague ideas about encounter options (perhaps unlocked by skills) that would allow a smaller fleet to isolate a portion of a larger one to fight against. It's not something I want to start out with, though, but something I'm going to keep in mind in case the campaign shapes up in a way that makes adding something like that desirable.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: CrashToDesktop on March 30, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Well, if you've got a lot of small ships, then I'm sure you could afford to use hit-and-run tactics.  Like it said, smaller ships regain CR faster than larger ones, so I'd say it's viable.

EDIT:
Travel drives, escape scenarios, and boarding, eh? :) Sounds interestings, and I'm sure we're all looking forward to the boarding part!
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
A large ship that's being so harassed can "stand down" after the engagement ends and regain CR. Unless the harassing side is losing enough ships or dealing enough damage to ensure that the CR recovery from "stand down" isn't complete.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: harperrb on March 30, 2013, 04:31:30 PM
Alex, you hit a high note each update.

Can't wait.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on March 30, 2013, 05:10:14 PM
Well, we knew the rough outline from the patchnotes but the details sound good, too :)  The choice between acquiring additional supplies and getting back CR sounds interesting. Is there anything to make sure that I get more supplies with "salvage" than restoring the CR with "stand down" would save me? Or at least, is there some kind of indicator that shows me when that would be the case? I can imagine that "salvage" could easily have the higher supply loss if I over-deployed against a weak enemy, and that would be kinda false advertising.


On a side note: Maybe use some other word than "harry", I had to look it up, too. "Hamper" the retreating fleet? Or just use harass again, the two options (harass and harry) seem to do the exact same thing.

Sounds interesting, and I'm sure we're all looking forward to the boarding part!

Ay, fingers crossed ;D
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: PCCL on March 30, 2013, 05:15:50 PM
well, I imagine salvage nets you weapons, which are worth so much more than supplies that CR cost shouldn't be a problem there
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on March 30, 2013, 05:29:29 PM
Depends, say I just attacked a empty cargo convoy armed with few weapons, or I am traveling alone in a cruiser and fought a frigate. Then there will likely be situations where I am far away from any station and need supplies badly, in that case some weapon drops would not help me.
It's something to consider.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: PCCL on March 30, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
that's a fair point...

speaking of which, will there be a way to stop CR regeneration to conserve supplies for accident aversion and such?
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: BillyRueben on March 30, 2013, 06:11:45 PM
Since there is a way to stop repairs to conserve supplies, I would imagine a way to stop CR regeneration would also be an option.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: sdmike1 on March 30, 2013, 07:00:12 PM
Can I just say that I love the amount of blog posts as of late ;)

Can I also just say that this is a stroke of genius, but like I think you said, the UI could use a little polish :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: mostmodest on March 30, 2013, 07:05:56 PM
harry ???

Harrying is very similar to Edding, yet slightly different to Steveing.
I hope I clarified things for you. :D


OT:
I quite like the new combat mechanism, and I can't wait to play it. :D
It seems every time I see a new blog post, my anticipation for the next update increases tenfold. :P
Anywho, I can't wait for v0.6a, and I wish you the best of luck with your production of this game.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: sdmike1 on March 30, 2013, 07:12:03 PM
For a smaller fleet trying to whittle down a large one, I think the most viable way would be indirect, by disrupting its lines of supply - supposing that's an option and the large fleet isn't operating in home territory within easy reach of friendly bases.

HolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHol aHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHolaHo laHolaHolaHolaHola..
Does this mean that there is a chance of multiple fleets or being able to have convoys that can drop off supplies directly to different fleets, because that would be very cool!

Totally expecting a :-X lol :P
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: DelicateTask on March 30, 2013, 07:32:47 PM
One thing about engagements that has always bothered me. When you attack another fleet, they become your destination on the campaign map. After the battle, you have to accelerate again from a stop. What if there were other fleets chasing you? You'll likely get caught by them before you can get up to full speed. I think that a fleet that successfully escapes from a battle should receive a large boost to acceleration and maybe even top speed for several seconds after a battle. If you've escaped, you're already running away at top speed and already have momentum. To go from that to nearly stationary on the campaign screen is both stupid and has the potential to compound your problems by immediately encountering another fleet. At the very least, perhaps an escape could increase the period of invincibility where you can't engage another fleet.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Decer304 on March 30, 2013, 07:59:02 PM
So i can technically defeat a big fleet with one ship by just retreating and challenging every time now?
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: harperrb on March 30, 2013, 08:21:39 PM
that's a fair point...

speaking of which, will there be a way to stop CR regeneration to conserve supplies for accident aversion and such?

I had this same thought.  I'm imagining a Victoria 2-style Army Supply Slider per fleet. That is, a % bar that will limit ships in a fleet to only resupply to the set limit. Allowing for control on longer missions with limited longterm supply
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: harperrb on March 30, 2013, 08:28:17 PM
So i can technically defeat a big fleet with one ship by just retreating and challenging every time now?

Take a another look. Retreating from battle will take a CR hit on top of deploying. So a single ship wlll run out of CR before a larger fleet, assuming the fleet has more ships with greater combined CR than the single ship.

Secondly, if your single ship is not faster than the fastest ship from the fleet, they can "Harry" you and cause a third CR hit.

I think i got that right.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2013, 10:24:45 PM
Alex, you hit a high note each update.

Can't wait.
OT:
I quite like the new combat mechanism, and I can't wait to play it. :D
It seems every time I see a new blog post, my anticipation for the next update increases tenfold. :P
Anywho, I can't wait for v0.6a, and I wish you the best of luck with your production of this game.

Thank you guys :)



Well, we knew the rough outline from the patchnotes but the details sound good, too :)  The choice between acquiring additional supplies and getting back CR sounds interesting. Is there anything to make sure that I get more supplies with "salvage" than restoring the CR with "stand down" would save me? Or at least, is there some kind of indicator that shows me when that would be the case? I can imagine that "salvage" could easily have the higher supply loss if I over-deployed against a weak enemy, and that would be kinda false advertising.

Good question. I'm actually considering whether CR recovery should consume much in the way of supplies at all and instead just take a much more appreciable amount of time. Regardless of that, "salvage" is almost universally better for supplies. I suppose if you deployed 3 Onslaughts against a Hound, it might reach a tipping point...


On a side note: Maybe use some other word than "harry", I had to look it up, too. "Hamper" the retreating fleet? Or just use harass again, the two options (harass and harry) seem to do the exact same thing.

Hm, maybe "harass". "Harry" is a pretty common word afaik, though, and it's used in a military context, so it's a good fit.



Does this mean that there is a chance of multiple fleets or being able to have convoys that can drop off supplies directly to different fleets, because that would be very cool!

Totally expecting a :-X lol :P

:-X


One thing about engagements that has always bothered me. When you attack another fleet, they become your destination on the campaign map. After the battle, you have to accelerate again from a stop. What if there were other fleets chasing you? You'll likely get caught by them before you can get up to full speed. I think that a fleet that successfully escapes from a battle should receive a large boost to acceleration and maybe even top speed for several seconds after a battle. If you've escaped, you're already running away at top speed and already have momentum. To go from that to nearly stationary on the campaign screen is both stupid and has the potential to compound your problems by immediately encountering another fleet. At the very least, perhaps an escape could increase the period of invincibility where you can't engage another fleet.

Going to revamp some related mechanics, likely soonish. I will say that stopping after battle is intentional, though. Tried it keeping the fleet's velocity and it just didn't feel right, like a battle wasn't of enough consequence to even slow a fleet down. Conceptually, when you escape you've just started accelerating up to travel speed, so being stopped at the campaign level makes sense, but whether it does or not isn't a really a major consideration, I think. Other fleets being able to catch you in that state is also intentional, meant to be another consideration to what a good fight to take is. But, again, campaign movement mechanics could use a revamp, so I'm not sure it makes sense to delve too deeply into the details of their current workings.

that's a fair point...

speaking of which, will there be a way to stop CR regeneration to conserve supplies for accident aversion and such?

I had this same thought.  I'm imagining a Victoria 2-style Army Supply Slider per fleet. That is, a % bar that will limit ships in a fleet to only resupply to the set limit. Allowing for control on longer missions with limited longterm supply

Haven't gotten to implementing this, but my thoughts have been going in a similar direction, with something to control maximum supply consumption.

So i can technically defeat a big fleet with one ship by just retreating and challenging every time now?

Take a another look. Retreating from battle will take a CR hit on top of deploying. So a single ship wlll run out of CR before a larger fleet, assuming the fleet has more ships with greater combined CR than the single ship.

Secondly, if your single ship is not faster than the fastest ship from the fleet, they can "Harry" you and cause a third CR hit.

I think i got that right.

Right. The bigger fleet could also "stand down", leaving the single ship with a double CR hit (deployed, retreated) vs no hit at all on the larger fleet.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Luftwaffle on March 30, 2013, 11:47:56 PM
Two questions, will character skill levels (specifically those dealing with fleet tactics and maybe industry for salvage) increase the effectiveness of these options?

When reputation is implemented as well, will that have an affect? I'd love to have enemies cower in fear even though they're stronger ;D
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Thana on March 31, 2013, 01:42:32 AM
I must say, I love it when games (and fiction, for that matter!) operate on the paradigm that there's more to war/conflict than just the battles. Not only does it help with immersion and grounding the action into a narrative with depth, it also helps give an added dimension to the proceedings. I heartily approve.

At first I read the reference to travel drives at the end of the blog post to imply inter-system travel, but then I realised it was just the intra-system travel being discussed.

Finally - and I know this is not a plausible scenario - I'd love it if you, Alex, were to teach the big gaming studios on how game design is supposed to be done, because you'd have a lot to teach them, I think.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: RawCode on March 31, 2013, 03:51:16 AM
is logic implemented as plugin (default event handler) or will be hardcoded?
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: harrumph on March 31, 2013, 06:07:23 AM
On a side note: Maybe use some other word than "harry", I had to look it up, too. "Hamper" the retreating fleet? Or just use harass again, the two options (harass and harry) seem to do the exact same thing.

Hm, maybe "harass". "Harry" is a pretty common word afaik, though, and it's used in a military context, so it's a good fit.
In a military context, "harass" and "harry" are near-perfect synonyms. As is so often the case in English, one comes from French (harass) and one from German (harry—it has the same etymological root as "Heer," actually).

—your local English major/copy editor/etymology nerd
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: theSONY on March 31, 2013, 07:39:08 AM
maybe "intercept"
because intercepting is cool as it sounds ;P
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Wyvern on March 31, 2013, 07:56:58 AM
Huh.  I find "harry" to be a perfectly valid word given the context - posting this mostly just as a "There exist other opinions on this" so we don't only see a vocal (possible?) minority.  That said, if there really are people who don't recognize it... well, I'd be 50/50 on "Change it so people don't need to reference a dictionary" vs. "Hey, you get to learn a new word!  How cool is that?"
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: silentstormpt on March 31, 2013, 08:35:04 AM
Huh.  I find "harry" to be a perfectly valid word given the context - posting this mostly just as a "There exist other opinions on this" so we don't only see a vocal (possible?) minority.  That said, if there really are people who don't recognize it... well, I'd be 50/50 on "Change it so people don't need to reference a dictionary" vs. "Hey, you get to learn a new word!  How cool is that?"
I'll Harry that fleet any day and no, its not what your thinking  :D
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on March 31, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Huh.  I find "harry" to be a perfectly valid word given the context

There's no doubt that it's fitting. But given that a good portion of  Starsector's players know English only as a second language, I think it is not a bad idea to eschew words that those players are very likely to not know. Of course my only measurement of that likelihood is the fact that this is the second word on the game I had to look up (first was entoptic, which just sounds cool), so it doesn't have to mean anything.


I've also got some vague ideas about encounter options (perhaps unlocked by skills) that would allow a smaller fleet to isolate a portion of a larger one to fight against. It's not something I want to start out with, though, but something I'm going to keep in mind in case the campaign shapes up in a way that makes adding something like that desirable.

That sounds like fun, and like it would be a great gift for players who plan to run with small fleets. If you connect it to the leadership aptitude those options could also make the aptitude interesting again for those players. At the moment you have practically only two aptitudes with a small fleet play-stile.
I imagine it would be especially thrilling if you have a timer running down, after which the main fleet joins the battle.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on March 31, 2013, 10:10:08 AM
Also: Ohhh, new screen borders (look at the picture in the blogpost). Supplied by TRIPAD?  :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 31, 2013, 10:31:19 AM
Two questions, will character skill levels (specifically those dealing with fleet tactics and maybe industry for salvage) increase the effectiveness of these options?

When reputation is implemented as well, will that have an affect? I'd love to have enemies cower in fear even though they're stronger ;D

Two answers: maybe and maybe :) (That is to say, not something I'm prepared to discuss in detail.)


Finally - and I know this is not a plausible scenario - I'd love it if you, Alex, were to teach the big gaming studios on how game design is supposed to be done, because you'd have a lot to teach them, I think.

Much as I appreciate the compliment, I wouldn't call myself an expert game designer, and I definitely don't want to put down the folks working in AAA game studios. They have an entirely different set of challenges, and I'm sure there are plenty of extremely bright people working there. There absolutely *have* to be, to make something as complex as a big-budget title come together! As with indie games, there are successes and failures. The difference is, we get to hear about the AAA failures and dissect them in great detail.


is logic implemented as plugin (default event handler) or will be hardcoded?

That dialog is implemented as an InteractionDialogPlugin. All the logic is at the moment moddable, except for some AI decisions about what to do (which could also be modded by putting it in the dialog rather than calling into the AI to get its choices).

In a military context, "harass" and "harry" are near-perfect synonyms. As is so often the case in English, one comes from French (harass) and one from German (harry—it has the same etymological root as "Heer," actually).

—your local English major/copy editor/etymology nerd

Speaking of nerding out on etymology, my favorite site ever: http://www.etymonline.com/


I'd be 50/50 on "Change it so people don't need to reference a dictionary" vs. "Hey, you get to learn a new word!  How cool is that?"

That sums up how I feel about it. Personally, I love when games teach me something new. But, I suppose there's a fine line here, between "making something iscrutable" vs "dumbing it down".


I've also got some vague ideas about encounter options (perhaps unlocked by skills) that would allow a smaller fleet to isolate a portion of a larger one to fight against. It's not something I want to start out with, though, but something I'm going to keep in mind in case the campaign shapes up in a way that makes adding something like that desirable.

That sounds like fun, and like it would be a great gift for players who plan to run with small fleets. If you connect it to the leadership aptitude those options could also make the aptitude interesting again for those players. At the moment you have practically only two aptitudes with a small fleet play-stile.
I imagine it would be especially thrilling if you have a timer running down, after which the main fleet joins the battle.

Right! I was also thinking it could be an interesting means of checking the player's fleet size if it was used against them. It could also make smaller fleets suddenly become a threat regardless of how huge your fleet is. This is all handwavy musings about a potential future, though :)


Also: Ohhh, new screen borders (look at the picture in the blogpost). Supplied by TRIPAD?  :)

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tri-Tachyon Corporation.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Astyanax on March 31, 2013, 11:16:48 AM
I like the idea- it sounds more interesting than using a straight crew calculation, but maybe some hybrid might work more "realistically"?

In terms of CR deployment loss, would it be feasible to base it on the proportion of fleet points of both fleets?

For example, if a 30-point fleet squares off against a 10-point fleet, the 10 point fleet would take 3 times more CR than the 30-point fleet, which would sort of reflect the psychological state of the smaller fleet ("Why am I committing suicide?").  Perhaps it could be partially mitigated by crew experience- green crew are cowed by everything and take full CR reduction, but elite crew are hardened and take only some portion of the CR loss.

For CR loss after combat, maybe it could be based on amount/severity of damage taken? A fleet that is nearly annihilated would be nowhere near combat ready, and ships that suffered engine shutdowns and multiple disabled systems would similarly be less ready.

For recovering CR, in addition to using supplies, maybe there could be travel modes where a fleet travels at some percent of it's full acceleration/speed to increase its rate of CR gain.  Faster fleets might be able to regain CR faster than pursuing fleets, which could reflect a "harrying" situation, where the harassing fleet could force a larger fleet to consume its supplies at a greater rate and eventually force it to retreat to resupply?  This all might be needlessly complex, however.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: K-64 on March 31, 2013, 11:19:01 AM
Don't see what the big fuss about the use of harry is for this. If people don't understand it, they'll come here and be taught about its use being proper, meaning that Starfarer is fun and educational. And everyone knows that a game that is both fun and educational is just awesomesauce

Note: It may look sarcastic, but it isn't. I just like the pink text :P
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 31, 2013, 11:30:43 AM
I like the idea- it sounds more interesting than using a straight crew calculation, but maybe some hybrid might work more "realistically"?

In terms of CR deployment loss, would it be feasible to base it on the proportion of fleet points of both fleets?

For example, if a 30-point fleet squares off against a 10-point fleet, the 10 point fleet would take 3 times more CR than the 30-point fleet, which would sort of reflect the psychological state of the smaller fleet ("Why am I committing suicide?").  Perhaps it could be partially mitigated by crew experience- green crew are cowed by everything and take full CR reduction, but elite crew are hardened and take only some portion of the CR loss.

Well, my question is, why? You've provided a lore explanation for the change, but one can provide a lore explanation for virtually every change, and that's not the same as providing a reason to make a change :)

(Btw, CR reflects more than just the crew's mental condition, in fact it's leaning more on the side of "overall condition of ship".)

"More realistic" by itself is not a very good reason, either, not without careful consideration for the impact a change has on gameplay.

For CR loss after combat, maybe it could be based on amount/severity of damage taken? A fleet that is nearly annihilated would be nowhere near combat ready, and ships that suffered engine shutdowns and multiple disabled systems would similarly be less ready.

That's actually there - there's a CR loss for weapons/engines being disabled in combat. Might end up replacing that with a straight calculation based on hull damage taken, though, to simplify things.

For recovering CR, in addition to using supplies, maybe there could be travel modes where a fleet travels at some percent of it's full acceleration/speed to increase its rate of CR gain.  Faster fleets might be able to regain CR faster than pursuing fleets, which could reflect a "harrying" situation?  This all might be needlessly complex, however.

Hmm. I've got some ideas kicking about re: "alert levels" which, if implemented, would be along these general lines.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: FlashFrozen on March 31, 2013, 11:51:19 AM
Just as an idea, why not make the Field Repairs skill in the Technology tree give a slight boost to CR at like level 5 /10? just seeing as a crew effective at repairing them ship should atleast be slightly more proficient at readying them for combat.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Astyanax on March 31, 2013, 11:56:05 AM
Well, my question is, why? You've provided a lore explanation for the change, but one can provide a lore explanation for virtually every change, and that's not the same as providing a reason to make a change :)

(Btw, CR reflects more than just the crew's mental condition, in fact it's leaning more on the side of "overall condition of ship".)

"More realistic" by itself is not a very good reason, either, not without careful consideration for the impact a change has on gameplay.
I guess I left that important bit out :o

I was trying to resolve the case where multiple fleets of shuttles or freighters could reduce a capital ship to unreadiness by engaging one after another.  That seemed pretty unrealistic in my mind, but the changes I suggested may well be a case where the cure is worse than the disease.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on March 31, 2013, 12:10:06 PM
I was trying to resolve the case where multiple fleets of shuttles or freighters could reduce a capital ship to unreadiness by engaging one after another.  That seemed pretty unrealistic in my mind, but the changes I suggested may well be a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

Ah, I see. The "Stand down" option pretty much takes care of that. You'd have to throw (and lose!) a prohibitive amount of smaller ships to make a dent in the CR of a larger ship. For example, something like 20ish Hounds to make an Onslaught non-combat-ready. At that point, you might as well take it on directly.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: silentstormpt on March 31, 2013, 12:38:17 PM
How would this CR work on station battles, you limited to defend and salvage right?

I know station battles aren't in yet, its just some brainstorming for what is to come
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: harperrb on March 31, 2013, 03:10:36 PM
Huh.  I find "harry" to be a perfectly valid word given the context

There's no doubt that it's fitting. But given that a good portion of  Starsector's players know English only as a second language, I think it is not a bad idea to eschew words that those players are very likely to not know. Of course my only measurement of that likelihood is the fact that this is the second word on the game I had to look up (first was entoptic, which just sounds cool), so it doesn't have to mean anything.

“The more one pleases generally, the less one pleases profoundly.”

 – Stendahl, Love 1822
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on March 31, 2013, 05:10:23 PM
Also: Ohhh, new screen borders (look at the picture in the blogpost). Supplied by TRIPAD?  :)

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tri-Tachyon Corporation.

Soooo... does that mean you plan on introducing such a world-intrinsic UI across the board? :)  We were talking about just that in the graphics thread.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Reapy on March 31, 2013, 05:55:54 PM
Excitedly waiting for part 2 :)

Harry was a recognized word for me. I think whether you say harass or harry it is equally confusing as to what it will do in game, even if you know the definition of the word. You will have to read a tool tip to know what is actually going to happen, and that in turn should help define what "Harry" means via the context of its affect on the fleet.  Hence, leaving harry in gives the two fold benefit of expanding the users vocabulary without sending them to the dictionary.

;)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Kommodore Krieg on March 31, 2013, 06:33:42 PM
I'm looking forward to this update, these are very interesting mechanics.  I'm a little surprised so many people aren't familiar with the word "harry".  As previously mentioned it makes perfect sense in the given context. 
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: RawCode on March 31, 2013, 10:25:37 PM
harras == hit and run tactics;
deal as much damage as possible without taking damage self;

in case of SF:
force to retreat right now, without any chance to fix stuff or regroup (this shoud result in bonus loot and slowest enemy ships may be damaged or destroyed at cost of CR)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: L33tGuilty on April 01, 2013, 04:44:08 AM
So is this patch ready for DL or not yet?? Then one that includes CR offcourse
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: arcibalde on April 01, 2013, 05:57:10 AM
So is this patch ready for DL or not yet?? Then one that includes CR offcourse
Not yet  ;D
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2013, 08:16:28 AM
Soooo... does that mean you plan on introducing such a world-intrinsic UI across the board? :)  We were talking about just that in the graphics thread.

Yeah, I noticed :) If it happens, it'll be a gradual process. I've been wanting to make things less UI-looking for a while, and this is a step in that direction. But I'd expect some of the older UI elements to stick around for a while, if not longer.


So is this patch ready for DL or not yet?? Then one that includes CR offcourse

It's not even particularly close to being ready. CR has a lot of tendrils! So, on the one hand, I feel really good about building a solid foundation for the campaign. On the other hand, I feel bad about making you guys wait, but oh well :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Cycerin on April 01, 2013, 09:40:22 AM
Looking forward to the next blogpost, there's more completely new info in that one it seems.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: RSS_Ornel on April 01, 2013, 05:33:20 PM
Honestly if fleet splitting is implemented i will love to have my own fleet be a pure elite one full of high tech phase frigates and such so i would love an engagement type that lets you split a portion of the enemies fleet off. I have an idea for this: the chance of success is not 100% and thus sometimes you will fail the "leadership roll" and you will not successfully ambush a fleet. Also could this require phase ships so i have a reason to use them again.(alex pls ;D)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on April 02, 2013, 03:48:38 PM
Conceptually, objectives are no longer present on the battlefield to begin with, but are deployed by your ships at suitable locations. (The objective sprites are not to scale.)

Since I could not find an explanation for this in the blogpost as I had hoped I now have to ask: Why this change, what's the benefit/necessity? What marks a "suitable location"? If my ships deploy the objective, why can't they so so freely (probably a lore question)?

Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on April 02, 2013, 04:32:13 PM
Looking forward to the next blogpost, there's more completely new info in that one it seems.

Right. The patch notes and the blog posts have some serious overlap at times :)


Since I could not find an explanation for this in the blogpost as I had hoped I now have to ask: Why this change, what's the benefit/necessity? What marks a "suitable location"? If my ships deploy the objective, why can't they so so freely (probably a lore question)?

It's just a lore change, there are no mechanics changes due to that particular item. Visually, the objectives start out mostly transparent and fade in when "deployed".

As to the lore reasoning, having that many objectives all over the place in what ought to be empty space never sat particularly well with me. I mean, you could handwave that away, but there's somewhat less waving of hands involved the new way of looking at it :)
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Gothars on April 02, 2013, 05:35:06 PM
It's just a lore change, there are no mechanics changes due to that particular item. Visually, the objectives start out mostly transparent and fade in when "deployed".

As to the lore reasoning, having that many objectives all over the place in what ought to be empty space never sat particularly well with me. I mean, you could handwave that away, but there's somewhat less waving of hands involved the new way of looking at it :)

Aaaa, just for lore, that makes more  sense. I think it's considerable less handwaving, it's obvious that stationary sensors and communication devices have to be at the focal points of p-space superposition to enable time-negative data amalgamation. Apple pie.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Doom101 on April 04, 2013, 02:13:15 AM
everything about this blog post makes me smile, even the parts that are just speculation as of now, IE Reputation, i so badly want to be a white knight of justice that makes pirates scatter by just hearing my name, or a Blackbeard-esque pirate that even hardened soldiers fear facing in combat.

Also please don't replace harry, it is proper and it makes sense. And it sounds intelligent, i'm so sick of games being dumbed down for a slightly stupider populace and besides if someone REALLY wants to look it up, their already on their computer and likely have a smartphone sitting next to them. I know that some people do not speak English, but shouldn't their games NOT be in English? For their translations swap it for an appropriate word, i wouldn't expect to see harry pop up in say a Russian version of Starsector.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Flare on April 05, 2013, 10:41:24 PM
Now that it takes combat readiness and supplies to deploy ships, we would now need to include utility ships to carry the abundance of supplies needed to engage in combat for prolonged periods away from stations. Would we be able to split the fleet, and leave the utility ships at a certain point while the faster ships pursue our targets? Most of those cargo freighters tend to be very slow in comparison to combat ships and would drag the whole party down.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: BillyRueben on April 06, 2013, 08:53:22 PM
What will the enemy AI's ships behave like when retreating? Will all of the AI's ships go racing for the exit, or will a few of the more powerful ships attempt to protect the less combat capable ships? Will it vary?

Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: L33tGuilty on April 07, 2013, 09:39:05 AM
Reading all these new mechanics that are being set in make me think about moral.

Did you think of putting that also in? Maybe even giving few points under "command" tree ??

sry if somsone els allready asked this question.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Uomoz on April 07, 2013, 09:44:31 AM
Moral could be a very interesting new feature, some kind of stat that get modified in battle by the events, like a ship destruction.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Thana on April 07, 2013, 11:28:38 AM
Moral could be a very interesting new feature, some kind of stat that get modified in battle by the events, like a ship destruction.

Considering crew quality factors into combat readiness, I think it's entirely possible that morale is simply abstracted into it as well.
Title: Re: Fleet Encounter Mechanics, Part 1
Post by: Alex on April 07, 2013, 11:38:32 AM
Now that it takes combat readiness and supplies to deploy ships, we would now need to include utility ships to carry the abundance of supplies needed to engage in combat for prolonged periods away from stations. Would we be able to split the fleet, and leave the utility ships at a certain point while the faster ships pursue our targets? Most of those cargo freighters tend to be very slow in comparison to combat ships and would drag the whole party down.

Haven't decided, need to see how the larger campaign plays out first. It's a possibility, but at the same time, fleet splitting has the potential to be really annoying if one has to do it. You'd have to split up supplies/crew/fuel/cargo, give some orders to the other fleet, etc. Could get pretty messy.


What will the enemy AI's ships behave like when retreating? Will all of the AI's ships go racing for the exit, or will a few of the more powerful ships attempt to protect the less combat capable ships? Will it vary?

Working on that now, actually. They definitely won't just all go racing for the exit, unless that makes sense (i.e. it's just a pair of Hounds, and there's no reason to stick around). In which case you, the player, should probably have picked "harry" rather than "pursue".

Moral could be a very interesting new feature, some kind of stat that get modified in battle by the events, like a ship destruction.

Considering crew quality factors into combat readiness, I think it's entirely possible that morale is simply abstracted into it as well.

Right, yes. Morale as a separate mechanic seems like it would be a bit much.