coming sometime next week, and talking about travel drive, the “escape scenario”, and boarding.
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/
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?)
Sounds interesting, and I'm sure we're all looking forward to the boarding part!
harry ???
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.
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?
So i can technically defeat a big fleet with one ship by just retreating and challenging every time now?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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).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.
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
Huh. I find "harry" to be a perfectly valid word given the context
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.
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
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.
is logic implemented as plugin (default event handler) or will be hardcoded?
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
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'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.
Also: Ohhh, new screen borders (look at the picture in the blogpost). Supplied by TRIPAD? :)
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? This all might be needlessly complex, however.
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 :)I guess I left that important bit out :o
(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 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.
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.
Also: Ohhh, new screen borders (look at the picture in the blogpost). Supplied by TRIPAD? :)
A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tri-Tachyon Corporation.
So is this patch ready for DL or not yet?? Then one that includes CR offcourseNot yet ;D
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.
So is this patch ready for DL or not yet?? Then one that includes CR offcourse
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.)
Looking forward to the next blogpost, there's more completely new info in that one it seems.
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 :)
Moral could be a very interesting new feature, some kind of stat that get modified in battle by the events, like a ship destruction.
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.
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?
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.