.. and it's keeping .6a from being fun.I disagree.
It's too heavily abstracted and there is nothing that interacts well with it. As it works now, it functions mostly to force players to rest, burning supplies, between fights, while supplies have become the primary expense and a constant drain.This is true in all walks of life. Maintenance of vehicles (let alone full blown repairs from weapon hits) is usually always more expensive then the initial construction (assuming they have a long life).
Rather then the primary limit to how much you can fight being your ability to engage and defeat foes, your ability to fight is now primarily limited by a pair of heavily abstracted concepts, supplies and combat readiness. A damaged fleet can have a voracious appetite for supplies, able to consume a freighter's worth before they will be ready to engage in combat again.So you're saying ships that have taken people sized shellings, missiles blowing chunks in the hull and lasers melting the armour, SHOULD NOT use insane amounts of supplies to repair? You're basically rebuilding entire parts of the ship.
And of course, we come to the cost of supplies, something changed and warped so much that at this point the ammunition, food and spare parts carried by a fleet is higher then the price to buy their ships outright.The way the game works atm, the spare parts are enough to basically build an entire ship anyway. It does rather make sense they'd be expensive.
I can see, in the blog post and in the game, what this system was intended to do, but currently it adds nothing good to the gameplay.It does add something good - it's making the choice of battles more interesting. It's making the strategic layer deeper. No longer can you just go and annihilate weaker enemy fleets using your entire fleet. You have the balance how easily you want to win, with the cost of supplies. This results in interesting choices, and thus enjoyment.
Completely agree with liq3.
Rather then the primary limit to how much you can fight being your ability to engage and defeat foes, your ability to fight is now primarily limited by a pair of heavily abstracted concepts, supplies and combat readiness.Hmm. I dunno about you, but for me the time immediately after a battle is spent hauling loot to the nearest station anyway, and after that (assuming I didn't just get CR replenished there) I still have to spend time looking for and chasing fleets appropriate to my strength. CR is never the limiting factor on how often I can fight battles.
.. and it's keeping .6a from being fun.I disagree.QuoteIt's too heavily abstracted and there is nothing that interacts well with it. As it works now, it functions mostly to force players to rest, burning supplies, between fights, while supplies have become the primary expense and a constant drain.This is true in all walks of life. Maintenance of vehicles (let alone full blown repairs from weapon hits) is usually always more expensive then the initial construction (assuming they have a long life).QuoteRather then the primary limit to how much you can fight being your ability to engage and defeat foes, your ability to fight is now primarily limited by a pair of heavily abstracted concepts, supplies and combat readiness. A damaged fleet can have a voracious appetite for supplies, able to consume a freighter's worth before they will be ready to engage in combat again.So you're saying ships that have taken people sized shellings, missiles blowing chunks in the hull and lasers melting the armour, SHOULD NOT use insane amounts of supplies to repair? You're basically rebuilding entire parts of the ship.QuoteAnd of course, we come to the cost of supplies, something changed and warped so much that at this point the ammunition, food and spare parts carried by a fleet is higher then the price to buy their ships outright.The way the game works atm, the spare parts are enough to basically build an entire ship anyway. It does rather make sense they'd be expensive.QuoteI can see, in the blog post and in the game, what this system was intended to do, but currently it adds nothing good to the gameplay.It does add something good - it's making the choice of battles more interesting. It's making the strategic layer deeper. No longer can you just go and annihilate weaker enemy fleets using your entire fleet. You have the balance how easily you want to win, with the cost of supplies. This results in interesting choices, and thus enjoyment.
Let's just get some numbers out.I think you're misunderstanding the numbers. Ships only use 10% supplies when they're at max CR. My fleet is using 2.1 supplies a day at max CR. It consists of 4 fighter squadrons, a frigate, a Hammerhead and a Condor. Deploying the Hammerhead for example only costs 10 supplies too, or 1200 credits.
Most Frigates cost about 2 supplies a day plus the never quite full CR penalty which brings it up to about 3. This means that for each frigate in the fleet you have to pay 360 credits PER DAY. Keep in mind that you only get a thousand or two credits per fight at the lower levels. Now keep in mind how long it takes to regenerate CR and you can see where the problems begin. Furthermore this doesn't account for damage ships take in battle (which they inevitably will).
Now that's just frigates, how about we go a little higher with destroyers, they often cost 4 a day and while under CR they take about 5 per day. That means they take about 600 credits per day. Not as bad as frigates but still pretty expensive considering how empty the sector is.
Cruisers take about 9 per day on average with an additional 2 for CR generation. About 1320 credits per day. Capital ships take up on average 15 supplies a day and 20 while regenerating CR or about 2400 credits per day.
All of this together means that the amount of cargo space, credits, and supply usage is far too high at this point in time. Furthermore the AI really isn't affected by CR in the same way the player is. They have infinitely respawning fleets that can get free resupplies whenever they want while you cannot. They always deploy all of their ships into combat and of course since they're AIs they can deal with losses in a way the player cannot.
CR doesn't really interact with how much damage a ship took. A ship that never took armor damage and one reduced to a half melted ruin are equally crippled for being in a fight. You have no way to repair CR faster, and no way to avoid CR loss. Yes, there are some strategies that work with it, and other that simply exploit it to make for easy fights and free money, but none of those are fun. The single defense of them is that it encourages you to have reserve ships, but is that really a problem? Especially given your foes are in no way required to stage their attacks this way, and will mob with what they have at hand. If you don't have reserve ships, or are one of the people that prefers to play with a single ship, it simply serves as a time out box that effects you far more then anyone you are fighting.
CR doesn't really interact with how much damage a ship took. A ship that never took armor damage and one reduced to a half melted ruin are equally crippled for being in a fight. You have no way to repair CR faster, and no way to avoid CR loss. Yes, there are some strategies that work with it, and other that simply exploit it to make for easy fights and free money, but none of those are fun. The single defense of them is that it encourages you to have reserve ships, but is that really a problem? Especially given your foes are in no way required to stage their attacks this way, and will mob with what they have at hand. If you don't have reserve ships, or are one of the people that prefers to play with a single ship, it simply serves as a time out box that effects you far more then anyone you are fighting.
Firstly, having easy ways to negate CR loss or repair it faster would LESSEN the choice you made when deciding your fleet layout. Differing deployment costs and recovery costs makes you think long and hard about what combos of ships are worth it. Playing with a single ship is still also quite viable, you just have to invest i a freighter and a few tugs. Their supply usage is minimal really. On accelerated time the downtime for CR recovery in physical time is very short indeed too.
I do see where you are coming from in a way though, when the only current objective of the game is to fight fleet after fleet, CR and expensive supplies get in the way (though I do think they still make an interesting mechanic) of the meat of the game. On the other hand, the game is IN-DEVELOPMENT, as it says right on the tin. I think players offering critique of new mechanics (outside of those only pertaining to combat) should at least think a little bit about how said mechanics are likely to work with the rest of the content in the finished game.
game no longer fun, now it survival + grinding, i personally can't understand why capital ship lose 30%CR per combat ever without taking any damage.
really, WTF???
3 damn frigates attacking capital ship one at time will win, ever without doing ANY DAMAGE.
going into combat stations and then going back and forth from there must be very tiring for the crew, and putting the ship in full combat readiness and then back down and back up again strains the systems because, you don't have time to fix them if you're being constantly harassed.
You have to think outside the box sometimes.
Also, why would a capital ship not have a significant escort?
Also, why would a capital ship not have a significant escort?
game no longer fun, now it survival + grinding, i personally can't understand why capital ship lose 30%CR per combat ever without taking any damage.
really, WTF???
3 damn frigates attacking capital ship one at time will win, ever without doing ANY DAMAGE.
...Also, why would a capital ship not have a significant escort?
Cruisers and destroyers often operate alone. Even battleships and battle cruisers would be tasked to solo missions like raiding. More to the point, given the inspirations for the game, first-rate ships of the line were often deployed to station alone.
I love the cr mechanic. Finally there is a reason to make smart deployment decisions! And to actually have frigates! And CR is intricately tied into the new multi-battle engagements, which I think is the best thing to happen to combat since combat has come out. Sure there are a few problems with it, but those are going to be ironed out.
Two tips for people having trouble managing supplies/cash/CR:
1) Sell your marines. They have outrageous upkeep.
2) If you won't be getting into another fight before returning to station, take ALL the supplies from a battle. Even if your logistics rating goes to 0, you probably won't have an accident and you'll be hauling home an extra 10k supplies in cash easy.
3) Go to the station with your loot then use the repair option. No waiting and it saves you money.
It took me 3 fights to get a destroyer, then another 5 to be sitting on 100k in cash. In the last version it would take me 3 times as long if I didn't get a lucky capture.game no longer fun, now it survival + grinding, i personally can't understand why capital ship lose 30%CR per combat ever without taking any damage.
really, WTF???
3 damn frigates attacking capital ship one at time will win, ever without doing ANY DAMAGE.
Thats odd! Isn't the point of the "Stand Down" option after a fight to restore most of the CR if there wasn't any damage? Maybe that mechanic isn't working, because I thought the whole point of that was to avoid the situation you are describing.
That said - I'm very glad that skirmishers are effective. Teaches the capital ship to bring a few escorts... Being able to fatigue/demoralize/skirmish the enemy has been a vaild tactic for thousands of years, from ancient times to present day. History is rife with vastly weaker, mobile forces harassing larger forces to death....Also, why would a capital ship not have a significant escort?
Cruisers and destroyers often operate alone. Even battleships and battle cruisers would be tasked to solo missions like raiding. More to the point, given the inspirations for the game, first-rate ships of the line were often deployed to station alone.
Ah, but thats a false analogy: ships of the line were significantly faster than smaller fighting craft in the age of sail. Anything dumb enough to harass a ship of the line was run down and destroyed or captured. Nowadays we think big=slow (and the game balance is a heck of a lot better that way, think of cruisers being uniformly faster than frigates...) but that wasn't the case then. Its more like an aircraft carrier or battleship being harassed by waves of torpedo armed speedboats.
The CR system totally cuts into my cheesy spammy fun. I can't just steamroll System Defence Fleets anymore.
Now I have to think tactically even about fights I can win easily.
Boooo....
I don't want to have to think. Make with the pew pews, scratch the CR system.
i won't even reply with a solid comment to that one.
this is a game where you have to use your brain, don't like it, find another game that doesn't require thinking.
.. and it's keeping .6a from being fun.
It's too heavily abstracted and there is nothing that interacts well with it. As it works now, it functions mostly to force players to rest, burning supplies, between fights, while supplies have become the primary expense and a constant drain.
...
Ok, children, let's review: You can disagree with someone without all sorts of personal attacks.
Having no way to interact with CR save to hold down the shift key and sigh?You interact with it by deploying as many ships as you need, no more and no less. You interact with it by buying and using different ships for different situations.
Bad game design. There are currently no skills, hull mods or ship special abilities that relate to itThe Combat aptitude reduces the CR needed to deploy your flagship. The Leadership aptitude and Fleet Logistics skills indirectly interact with it, by increasing the fleet size you can handle without incurring CR penalties. This doesn't fit into the listed categories, but better crew also allow a ship to have more CR. So yes, a few existing gameplay elements already relate to CR, and more can be added as the game develops.
The point is that CR should not limit variety of strategies to play with. It ONLY should limit how good is certain strategy in different situations. But we don't have any variety of situations, and instead of bringing different playstyles, making players to invent strategy for different situations, new system only limits us to limited number of viable playstyles. You want to try something different? No. It's not effective.
What I am afraid of is that this will persist through whole alpha to release date. I already saw such gamedev decisions with bigger titles and I am not sure that history won't repeat itself.
In v.0.54 you were able to try anything and the only judge was battlefield. I want to clear one thing on this matter. Is it possible to imagine game completely striped of supplies, inventory, traveling in space between planets, buying ships etc.? Yes. And I am sure that many players will be still satisfied with such gameplay.
Now try to imagine game completely striped of combat. It's hard to imagine, for game to have at least some meaning you will have to come up at least some sort of combat dialogue, or game will become another Microsoft flight sim.
What it shows is that in Starsector gameplay centered around combat. Everything else exists only to support combat and make it more fun to play. And things get less fun when such sytems as CR is taking focus from combat, things become less fun when the main role in game is played by some abstract number. In other words combat means less in current game and CR determines too many things, its too important number. And while being important it brings zero fun, while cutting off good portion of fun from other parts of this game.
-snip-
I have lot's of fun with his version, there are many other new things besides CR. But I tend to agree that the whole logistic system, seen for itself, is not a very "fun" mechanic. I don't know if pure logistics even can be.
-snip-
Had to register for this.
Combat readiness is the single most important part of Starsector going forward. Sure, when all we have is two systems working as a sandbox to shoot things in, it's not much. But if the game is ever to be a challenge, something to play rather than something to play with, it needs a supply system. And to be honest, it's a good system. There's no fussing with different resources to supply the ships, there's a noticeable difference between different levels of CR, and there's a high variability in supply costs depending on how well you plan your engagements and movements.
I'm sure there's tweaking to be done but all by its lonesome, CR improved 0.6 a hell of alot more than anything else in there at the moment.
But really, what bothers me about CR, is the in-combat degredation. The bonuses feel a bit contrived, as you have little control over them, and the penalties are just extreme - if your battle lasts more than a few minutes, everything will just start malfunctioning constantly. A combat readyness drop after battle based on length and damage taken is fine, but the in-combat degredation is incredibly unfun.
Me too, haha. Welcome, btw! :DHad to register for this.
Combat readiness is the single most important part of Starsector going forward. Sure, when all we have is two systems working as a sandbox to shoot things in, it's not much. But if the game is ever to be a challenge, something to play rather than something to play with, it needs a supply system. And to be honest, it's a good system. There's no fussing with different resources to supply the ships, there's a noticeable difference between different levels of CR, and there's a high variability in supply costs depending on how well you plan your engagements and movements.
I'm sure there's tweaking to be done but all by its lonesome, CR improved 0.6 a hell of alot more than anything else in there at the moment.
This guy I like.
I disagree: first I find fun having to take in consideration more factors (like the frig timer), rather then less, second this update actually differentiated ship roles a bit more and that was a VERY needed thing. Haven't anyone noticed the HUGE speed buff on all frigates???
Sure, I don't think the supply consumption (in the current state of the game) works, but I see the point of it for future versions. However, managing the supplies (buying them, selling excess, etc) is more finicky than it needs to beIf you SERIOUSLY have a problem with buying and selling a SINGLE RESOURCE to manage all the supplies for all your entire fleet, then there is nothing that can be done for you. Just play the old versions of starsector forever. I assume its going to get at least a little more "finicky" when officers, outposts, trading, etc comes in.
Sure, I don't think the supply consumption (in the current state of the game) works, but I see the point of it for future versions. However, managing the supplies (buying them, selling excess, etc) is more finicky than it needs to be, and ships seem to hold EXTREMELY little compared to how much they consume - a long frigate (at least, some of them) can't get from the centre of the first starsystem to the tri-tech base under its own power without malfunction. I think the consumption rates and/or the cargo hold sizes need to be tweaked.
Also, fuel feels really redundant. Even when inter-sector travel has more of a point, it still feels like supplies will be the bottleneck, rather than fuel. I would almost suggest either amalgamating the two or making sublight travel also use fuel - your ships have huge fuel bays and very little cause to use them, while they absolutely chew through supplies. Some tweak there might be worthwhile.
But really, what bothers me about CR, is the in-combat degredation. The bonuses feel a bit contrived, as you have little control over them, and the penalties are just extreme - if your battle lasts more than a few minutes, everything will just start malfunctioning constantly. A combat readyness drop after battle based on length and damage taken is fine, but the in-combat degredation is incredibly unfun.
edit: I would also say that 'stand down' being unavailable for anything beyond a fairly trivial fight doesn't help things.
I like the idea of CR, but it feels kind of arbitrary how it drains sometimes. I want the limitations and strategic thinking that it enforces, but I really dislike the arbitrary feel of the "frigate timer" and CR drain on deployment not feeling like it has much to do with what I would imagine might actually put a strain on a ship's systems and crew to make it less combat ready.
All I know is I also had more fun before it was implemented, but I'm happy to wait and see what happens with it.
Had to register for this.
Combat readiness is the single most important part of Starsector going forward. Sure, when all we have is two systems working as a sandbox to shoot things in, it's not much. But if the game is ever to be a challenge, something to play rather than something to play with, it needs a supply system. And to be honest, it's a good system. There's no fussing with different resources to supply the ships, there's a noticeable difference between different levels of CR, and there's a high variability in supply costs depending on how well you plan your engagements and movements.
I'm sure there's tweaking to be done but all by its lonesome, CR improved 0.6 a hell of alot more than anything else in there at the moment.
Spoiler-snip-
I have lot's of fun with his version, there are many other new things besides CR. But I tend to agree that the whole logistic system, seen for itself, is not a very "fun" mechanic. I don't know if pure logistics even can be.
-snip-
Pure logistics can absolutely be great fun! Just look at Cities In Motion or, if you're a weirdo like me, Euro Truck Sim. XD
It just has to be designed correctly. The problem is with the fact that Alex seems far too afraid of becoming too "micro managey". What has to be kept in mind is probably the NUMBER ONE THING that will upset a player: lack of control. It's why so many people hate table top rpgs (don't worry, I love them). It's why there are jokes everywhere on the internet of a veteran samurai killing tanks (Civilization). While realistic, lack of control will *** nearly anyone off.
The only problem with CR I've had is, very possibly, that it's far too abstract. It may be far better to split things up. I see people bringing CR being taking care of crew injuries, replacing damaged parts, ect. It's my opinion that it should maybe be split into 3 parts.
Upkeep: Very basic. Base daily cost. It's the cost of food, basic supplies, clothing, ect. This is per ship. Could also include per crew, but I'm not sure how easy that would be to really balance. This is a baseline and shouldn't change.
Maintenance: Subsystem damage, maintenance. This should be our repair costs. This should be what we use when going into combat. Lighting up that tachyon lance is not easy if there's a pothole in the EM shielding! This should be able to be suspended by the player.
Casualties/Medical: This, I think, is the best addition. As people have stated, they see CR, in part, as taking care of injured crew. I agree with this assessment, and it makes sense that you can't just "suspend medical treatment" and everything is fine and dandy. But, in this game, it always had the atmosphere of "unfriendly, unrelenting universe". You can't suspend this. BUT, you can cancel it, and lose a random, but high, percentage of the injured crew. Not only is that insanely inhumane (which can be interesting in itself in an ethical exploration standpoint), seeing your injury numbers after combat gives a kind of beautiful depiction of the human cost of your conquest.
I really think this adds far more to the game and gives the player more control, while also not being too micro. We're only talking a single fleet here. Two dozen ships, if that. If you're running low on supplies, this is not too much to think about and shouldn't be a problem very often, only if something has gone horribly wrong. For example, you took on a large fleet and lost a major ship or two and were then chased and caught by another fleet, which you luckily beat. The chase drained your supplies and the multiple combats in quick succession (as well as the low maintenance of the ships) have caused large amounts of crew injuries. Do you halt maintenance on a few ships to keep you held over 'til port, but risk being outmatched on the long trip home, or do you stop treating the injuries and lose 80% of the casualties you sustained in battle, just so you don't have to risk losing more ships to retreats if you're caught on the way? Or are you so low, you have to do both? Are you ethically willing to do both?
I dunno. I may be off base here, but I see some interesting passion in that.[close]
Sure, I don't think the supply consumption (in the current state of the game) works, but I see the point of it for future versions. However, managing the supplies (buying them, selling excess, etc) is more finicky than it needs to beIf you SERIOUSLY have a problem with buying and selling a SINGLE RESOURCE to manage all the supplies for all your entire fleet, then there is nothing that can be done for you. Just play the old versions of starsector forever. I assume its going to get at least a little more "finicky" when officers, outposts, trading, etc comes in.
I also wanted to quickly comment on a mention about the capital ships operating alone should be easier because that's how it works in our real world navy
I agree with OP; CR in its current form isn't fun.I disagree. By stopping the player deploying all his ships every battle, it forces more interesting strategy and makes the game deeper.
Compare this to previous versions, where suffering heavy damage from a major battle would require a re-cooperation period.1. What? How is that even relevant?
On the surface this re-cooperation period appears similar to CR, however there are 3 critical differences:
1) damage is visual
2) damage is avoidable; it's the direct result of the player (or the AI under the player's command) making a mistake.
3) damage isn't completely crippling; even a heavily damaged ship could put up a fight.
Put succinctly CR disempowers the player.I'm pretty sure that's the point. ::)
I think the biggest problem is it's an artificial restriction upon what the player is able to do; much like the annoying stamina bars you find in many modern FPS games.I think this point needs more elaboration. Is limited ammo for ballistics and missiles an artificial restriction? What about credits? Stores having only a limited selection of items in stock?
This artificial restriction is completely unavoidable; it's applied for just playing the game as it's supposed to be played.
It's simple. If artificial restriction enriches gameplay variety - it is fun and good. If it only limits gameplay variety to very few possible strategies - it's not fun at all.
Ammo restriction enriches gameplay with different playstyles - you either have super efficient weapon with limited usability, or you have mediocre weapon with unlimited ammo. You can choose either of options and each is VIABLE and good to use. And because they are different, in some situations you will have an edge by using certain option.
What we have now - we have only one type of weapon being effective at all in a whole game. Because artificial restriction created variety of options, choices, but there are no REAL choices to make. Every other choice except of one is not viable.
You didn't give an answer then. Would you like to now?The point is that CR should not limit variety of strategies to play with. It ONLY should limit how good is certain strategy in different situations. But we don't have any variety of situations, and instead of bringing different playstyles, making players to invent strategy for different situations, new system only limits us to limited number of viable playstyles. You want to try something different? No. It's not effective.
What I am afraid of is that this will persist through whole alpha to release date. I already saw such gamedev decisions with bigger titles and I am not sure that history won't repeat itself.
This is a complicated question. First of all, I think what you're saying implies that all strategies should be good in some situation. I can't agree with that; for any set of mechanics, doing some things is just going to be a bad idea. Like, say, buidling a fleet around freighters as the primary combat ship. It might be fun, and you might make it work once or twice, but it's certifiably worse than using combat ships for the purpose.
What makes things fun, imo, is having to take different considerations into account while coming up with a combat-viable fleet. If the "only judge is the battlefield", as you say, that quickly leads to a few "this is best" setups, and that's that. If, on the other hand, you have external considerations, you get a lot more variety. A good example of this is the Hyperion. It's a really fun ship, and I didn't want to destroy its combat potential - which you'd pretty much have to, if combat balance was the only concern. But with the logistics profile it has, it can remain an amazingly good ship that's all the more special because you don't get to see it in every single battle.
So, ultimately, I think out-of-combat effectiveness considerations actually enhance both the variety of ships and strategies. Not being able to always use a combat-optimal approach is what makes it interesting, because the combat-optimal approach, by definition, can often lead to one-sided battles.
Further, I'm at a loss to come up with strategies that the CR system has taken away. Using overwhelming force in every situation? Well yeah, it did that, but it was meant to. Flying around with a solo capital ship? To a point, but you can stand down from combat to keep CR high, and pick up points in Combat to further reduce CR loss. It's certainly doable. Frigate swarm? Still viable, by all accounts. All-high-tech fleet? Also still viable, as long as you don't overdeploy - basically, the high tech ships are forced to pull their weight rather than overwhelm with speed, shield efficiency, and overall quality.
So, honest question: what options do you feel CR took away?
And something has to be done, because current gameplay will not satisfy all players in a long term.
Alex, CR took away the option to play as an independent ship captain. You can't really solo. 1 man(and a nameless crew), 1 ship against insurmountable odds.
This is something a lot of people like. There's a whole genera based around it. It's the essence of the X-wing/TIE Fighter like space combat sim.
It's... not really an option anymore. It wasn't really my play style, but I can understand the loss.
I think it has a pretty simple solution. Have a skill that drastically reduces the CR cost of the piloted ship(also killing the frigate CR burn timer). Or just build in an exception for solo fleets, or fleets with under a given DP/Logistic cost. 'You're a great captain with mad logistical skills who motivates the heck out of his crew, you don't have to deal with CR issues nearly as much so long as you are in a frigate or destroyer'.
If it is automatic, it would make the early game a lot less stressful as well. Realize eventually you are going to have people playing this who don't already love the game, giving them a pass on dealing constantly with CR until they have more experience and a multiship fleet will probably help newbies get into the game.
Just a thought.
Also, if it were logistics cost/DP based you'd have an excuse for it not to apply to the hyperion.
Isn't a pursuit an extremely common situation where frigates are especially useful given their speed and flanking ability?That is another problem. As your fleet gets stronger, you pursue more and fight fewer standup battles. You need frigates to catch up and kill your fleeing chunks of XP and supplies. Eventually, you need frigates for everything that does not involve hauling loot. For that job, you need one or two Atlas and several Oxen.
Take the supplies and only take the loot if you need it to outfit your ships.I can still get more loot than I can carry even if I ignore junk weapons. The supplies alone can sometimes be more than I can take unless I have freighters handy, and I need them all to fix all of my ships two or three times, assuming I do not sell supplies for cash.
Alex, CR took away the option to play as an independent ship captain. You can't really solo. 1 man(and a nameless crew), 1 ship against insurmountable odds.
QuoteIsn't a pursuit an extremely common situation where frigates are especially useful given their speed and flanking ability?That is another problem. As your fleet gets stronger, you pursue more and fight fewer standup battles. You need frigates to catch up and kill your fleeing chunks of XP and supplies. Eventually, you need frigates for everything that does not involve hauling loot. For that job, you need one or two Atlas and several Oxen.
* Frigate stamina - either you are strong enough that it does not matter, or you are not and it cripples your ships.So frigate-heavy fleets have an "effective loss" condition, and expect you to be able to defeat the enemies you commit to action against. How is this different from anything else in the game? Why is it a bad thing in itself?
Are you seriously complaining that enemy fleets don't charge you to their deaths any more? Or that you run out of people to fight once you're vastly stronger than anyone else?QuoteIsn't a pursuit an extremely common situation where frigates are especially useful given their speed and flanking ability?That is another problem. As your fleet gets stronger, you pursue more and fight fewer standup battles. You need frigates to catch up and kill your fleeing chunks of XP and supplies. Eventually, you need frigates for everything that does not involve hauling loot.
I need to go friendly station after every encounter (which usually consists of two fights), and my favorite thing to do in the game once I am powerful enough is make enemies out of everyone so I can fight more.
I do not play Starsector for reality. I play Starsector and few other similar games for gratuitous space battles or otherwise rampage like Godzilla. Earlier versions of Starsector, despite some problems, did this well. The campaign is a nice touch as long as it does not wreck the core of the game - combat. What I want to do in Starsector, after the campaign gets done, is build up an army then unleash war in the whole sector until my side is the last one standing.
I need to go friendly station after every encounter (which usually consists of two fights), and my favorite thing to do in the game once I am powerful enough is make enemies out of everyone so I can fight more.
I do not play Starsector for reality. I play Starsector and few other similar games for gratuitous space battles or otherwise rampage like Godzilla. Earlier versions of Starsector, despite some problems, did this well. The campaign is a nice touch as long as it does not wreck the core of the game - combat. What I want to do in Starsector, after the campaign gets done, is build up an army then unleash war in the whole sector until my side is the last one standing.
That's just it though. The game isn't going to be just about combat. It's just one of many ways to eke out a living in game, once those other ways are fully put in. The reason the combat was done so completely first was so that us, the players have something interesting to play about with rather than having a spaceship truck simulator.
Are you seriously complaining that enemy fleets don't charge you to their deaths any more? Or that you run out of people to fight once you're vastly stronger than anyone else?QuoteIsn't a pursuit an extremely common situation where frigates are especially useful given their speed and flanking ability?That is another problem. As your fleet gets stronger, you pursue more and fight fewer standup battles. You need frigates to catch up and kill your fleeing chunks of XP and supplies. Eventually, you need frigates for everything that does not involve hauling loot.
I dunno, I've invested about 80 hours intoSpaceship Truck SimulatorX3:AP.
The problems at the (later) stage of the game when most battles are pursuit are thus:
* Deploying bigger ships to take out weakened and/or non-combat ready ships is an unnecessary drain on supplies and CR, unless it has a flight deck (e.g., Atlas, Odyssey) and you use fighters.
* Bigger ships often cannot catch up to the smaller ships that are fleeing, those enemy ships most likely to survive a previous melee.
My solution to "everything fleeing" is to field a fleet that looks weak, but really isn't. At the moment, I have one Apogee, one Vigilance, and two tugs; I've just maxed out combat aptitude, and will be starting on tech next. I field the Apogee for the main fight, and use the Vigilance to run down anything that managed to escape. Most of the larger pirate fleets - the ones worth fighting - are more than happy to pick a fight with a nearly-solitary cruiser. And, well, I have maxed combat aptitude and an Apogee with a plasma cannon; the pirates don't stand a chance.
You might still get a few cap ships together if you're trying to achieve a specific campaign goal (say, glass a Hegemony core world), but that'd be something more circumstance-driven rather than the "standard" fleet. It could also be something that you do more often if you had more points in leadership, though that aptitude needs a lot of work to be more appealing.Right now, Leadership is the Constitution stat of Starsector. You cannot ignore it for very long - you must have some to pilot a battleship with more than a skeleton crew without going over Logistics, and you need freighters to carry the supplies you salvage after each battle. And since CR forces you to rotate ships if you want to fight much, you need a backup ship. This is a change from previous versions where Leadership was useful, but not required. Now, it is required, because 20 Logistics is not enough.
Right now, Leadership is the Constitution stat of Starsector. You cannot ignore it for very long - you must have some to pilot a battleship with more than a skeleton crew without going over Logistics, and you need freighters to carry the supplies you salvage after each battle. And since CR forces you to rotate ships if you want to fight much, you need a backup ship. This is a change from previous versions where Leadership was useful, but not required. Now, it is required, because 20 Logistics is not enough.
Glassing worlds? Can we wipe out factions off the sector in the finished game? I would love it if an endgame goal (out of several possible) is destroy all factions via combat.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/deaecc0e466e47a7ea77167381961a69/tumblr_mohw4gbpIp1qmiff2o1_500.gifGlassing worlds? Can we wipe out factions off the sector in the finished game? I would love it if an endgame goal (out of several possible) is destroy all factions via combat.
:-X
But I did, and will not apologize for that because I got Starsector for the combat. My only other space game options for now, short of making my own game, is Star Control 2, Transcendence, or one of the retro '80s games like Asteroids, Defender, or Sinistar. I do not have gobs of time searching for and playing a bunch of other games, as there is more to life than games. Starsector has the potential to be as fun as Star Control 2 as I had back in the day.
Edit - Before I got Starsector, I had to choose between SPAZ and Starfarer. My first decision was SPAZ, until I discovered I needed an internet connection to activate the game. Starsector had a simple key, just like relatively older games from the late '90s. I play all of my computer games offline. Starsector won over SPAZ due to no internet required for activation (beyond acquiring the key). Thank you Alex and the rest of Fractal Softworks.
But I did, and will not apologize for that because I got Starsector for the combat. My only other space game options for now, short of making my own game, is Star Control 2, Transcendence, or one of the retro '80s games like Asteroids, Defender, or Sinistar. I do not have gobs of time searching for and playing a bunch of other games, as there is more to life than games. Starsector has the potential to be as fun as Star Control 2 as I had back in the day.
Edit - Before I got Starsector, I had to choose between SPAZ and Starfarer. My first decision was SPAZ, until I discovered I needed an internet connection to activate the game. Starsector had a simple key, just like relatively older games from the late '90s. I play all of my computer games offline. Starsector won over SPAZ due to no internet required for activation (beyond acquiring the key). Thank you Alex and the rest of Fractal Softworks.
But I did, and will not apologize for that because I got Starsector for the combat. My only other space game options for now, short of making my own game, is Star Control 2, Transcendence, or one of the retro '80s games like Asteroids, Defender, or Sinistar. I do not have gobs of time searching for and playing a bunch of other games, as there is more to life than games. Starsector has the potential to be as fun as Star Control 2 as I had back in the day.
Edit - Before I got Starsector, I had to choose between SPAZ and Starfarer. My first decision was SPAZ, until I discovered I needed an internet connection to activate the game. Starsector had a simple key, just like relatively older games from the late '90s. I play all of my computer games offline. Starsector won over SPAZ due to no internet required for activation (beyond acquiring the key). Thank you Alex and the rest of Fractal Softworks.
Right now, Leadership is the Constitution stat of Starsector. You cannot ignore it for very long - you must have some to pilot a battleship with more than a skeleton crew without going over Logistics, and you need freighters to carry the supplies you salvage after each battle. And since CR forces you to rotate ships if you want to fight much, you need a backup ship. This is a change from previous versions where Leadership was useful, but not required. Now, it is required, because 20 Logistics is not enough.
Yeah... and building on that, it's not a *fun* thing to spend points in, unlike combat or tech which unlock various shinies. I'm ok with that as a temporary state of affairs, but definitely something I'd like to address in the future.
Tarsusseseses (what's the plural for those things?)
Right now, Leadership is the Constitution stat of Starsector. You cannot ignore it for very long - you must have some to pilot a battleship with more than a skeleton crew without going over Logistics, and you need freighters to carry the supplies you salvage after each battle. And since CR forces you to rotate ships if you want to fight much, you need a backup ship. This is a change from previous versions where Leadership was useful, but not required. Now, it is required, because 20 Logistics is not enough.
Yeah... and building on that, it's not a *fun* thing to spend points in, unlike combat or tech which unlock various shinies. I'm ok with that as a temporary state of affairs, but definitely something I'd like to address in the future.Glassing worlds? Can we wipe out factions off the sector in the finished game? I would love it if an endgame goal (out of several possible) is destroy all factions via combat.
:-X
@Sordid:
Well... the same sort of thing happens when a ship goes from 1 hitpoint to 0 and explodes, or 1 point over its flux capacity and overloads.
If you're looking for lore justifications, I think you could probably come up with quite a few. One possible explanation: let's say the power conduits are only rated for a certain number of charge up/down cycles, and re-powering up the weapon system at that point would simply blow everything out.
That said, the situation you described is quite an unpleasant surprise for the player. Changed it so that a beaten fleet won't attempt to re-engage if the only reserves it has are civilian ships. Previously, it would not attempt to reengage if it had no reserves - even if some of the deployed-then-retreated ships were still combat ready. Basically, the goal here is to prevent the player from losing a battle due to CR where it feels like they won. IMO, if there are military-grade, combat-ready reserves, then tough luck - but if the enemy was all in a headlong flight, or only had civilian ships in reserve, then they should just keep on running.
Thanks for pointing this out, btw!
I had a similar encounter just now. My Paragon is barely holding together, dipping between 0CR and ~20%. Attacked the pirate plunder fleet because they'd have a buttload of supplies, got battered a bit from the massive outnumbering but otherwise killed enough combat ships to force a retreat. Send out salvage teams. Remaining active Tarsusseseses (what's the plural for those things?) didn't want to fly away, I wanted to disengage and that translated into "I want to abandon all the supplies I just sent out salvage crews for and fly away empty handed". Wait, wat? Hey, guise? Erm... We forgot the supplies, guise. Guise. *shrugs* Okay, fine, everyone's going hungry for a week, then.There's something that's definitely wonky in that sequence; I've had issues with trying not getting the option to get the loot, even when I disengage and enemies heavier than Frigates have been taken out. IDK what's up with that one, but I'd have to say that it's a bug. I'm guessing Alex is already polishing that logic though :)
If I may make a suggestion, put that lore explanation into the game in some flavor text or something. Just so it's there for nitpickers like me.
Also, I think I can foresee a problem with your solution. What if the enemy has something like a Hound or a Lasher? Having to run away from a couple of freighters in my battleship was really bad, having to run away from a lone frigate wouldn't be much better. Again, it would be nice to at least have some in-game justification for why I have to leave without any of the loot. Maybe put something like "the remaining enemy ships maneuver to prevent you from conducting salvage operations" into the battle log or something along those lines to make it clear. Just an idea.
If you disengage, you get no loot - you don't ultimately hold the field and can't conduct salvage operations. The crews that are out get recalled as your fleet withdraws. Might not hurt to have some text mentioning this to make it more clear what's going on, conceptually.Just to be 100% clear: I've hit the "salvage team" option before, which should end combat and take me to the loot screen... and I've been put into loops with the enemy fleet's remaining forces where the only way to break out is to select Pursue or Leave. I really don't think it should work like that- if I've selected "salvage", I'm de-facto declaring disengagement, so the loop should either:
So, let's say a lone onslaught comes up against 5 hounds.
The hound player decides to deploy just a single hound.
It dies.
Rinse & repeat.
Another hound dies.
3rd round, onslaught can't deploy so is forced to retreat.
Result: 2 dead hounds, and a CR depleted onslaught that'll cost far more than 2 hounds to resupply.
It seems to me that the CR system as it stands can be manipulated in every situation to accomplish this 'victory through attrition'.
The only reason it doesn't is that the AI's deployment strategy is suboptimal.
I'm fine if they want to come back and fight again, so long as it doesn't mean I've just killed an Onslaught and a dozen freighters and have just lost all that loot because a couple of Hounds wanted to continue the slaughter :)
I think the issue here is that if there's any loot at all... I'd expect that we can always return to those dead ships, since we know where they are, and that we can always finish what we started, so long as we're not defeated.
We shouldn't lose that loot unless we've lost the battle and have been forced to run away (presumably the enemy takes the loot then). Right now, there are a lot of absurd situations that happen, where I've totally wiped the floor with my opponents but I get stuck and can't finish looting and lose the loot, which is irksome.
IMO the logic that determines whether the enemy fights or flees should take into account more than just whether their remaining ships are civilian or military. I think the enemy should take into consideration whether they're actually physically able to destroy my ships with theirs. If I have a non-CR Onslaught and the enemy has a CR Hound, that's not really much of a win for them, is it? Okay, so they fly their itty bitty frigate to my dead-in-space battleship and empty their ammo reserves into it, accomplishing precisely nothing. And then what? Yeah, they have a CR ship and I don't, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I lost. In this case it's more of a draw, which the game doesn't really know how to handle.
We may be talking about different things, I'm not sure. If you "disengage" from the engagement, that's you losing and the enemy winning. You win if the enemy tries to disengage and you pursue/harry/let them go.Sorry, got terms mishmashed here. What I meant was that "let them go" isn't coming up in every choice after the initial win; if they aren't coming back for another round of combat, I expect "let them go" to mean the fight's over and I get the loot.
On a lore level, if a Hound's captain *knows* that an Onslaught can't fire back, that's quite different that a normal battle. I'd imagine the Onslaught has to try to get away to preclude all sorts of fancy targeting options the Hound might get otherwise.
Also, a stock Hound (Assault Chaingun + Light MG) actually has considerably more than enough ammo to take out an Onslaught, provided it all goes into roughly the same spot in roughly the right order.
Edit: the latter is really a side point; I don't think getting into trying to calculate that out is a good idea. For one, energy weapons. For two, confusion. As is, if someone wants a fight and you're not ready for one, you lose - clean and simple. Whether they have enough firepower to take a bite out of you comes into play in the escape scenario.
But c'mon, I know this is an edge case, but there has to be some way to handle it better than it currently is being handled. I refuse to accept that obliterating an entire armada worth of cruisers and destroyers and being left with a non-CR Onslaught against a CR Hound at the end of it is a defeat. It is according to the cold hard logic of the rules but it just doesn't feel right. Perhaps there could be some sort of morale system that would make the remaining ships flee? That Hound's captain just witnessed the entire rest of his force evaporate in the face of that battleship, he likely shat himself so hard that he rocketed out of his captain's chair and bonked his head on the ceiling.
Dude..the Combat readiness is a failure in so many levels...it drains SO FAST im not kidding when i say that in one battle i have to take a break...i mean wtf...in the game days pass by so how are they not rested...i can do WAY more then these guys in a day then they ever can...and in the middle of the battle the damn crew losses CR and the ship malfuctions...really...am i with a bunch of teeneagers...and dont say maintaining a ship is hard work or stressful because every other sci fi or game has spaceships and they are managed and maintained very well...and they dont have the energy span of a Mc Donalds regular.....this is by far the dumbest idea ive ever had to deal with...it sounds good on paper...but this concept is so fuckin broken that i flat out for the first time for a game that was a gold mine stopped playing it and rage quit...i hired pilots not high school drop outs...didnt you test this feature...and did you really think this would work out...im so mad right now...now i cant play this game because its unplayable...almost to the point of collapse....and i have to wait till next upate for the fix...just..no...try again sir
Also, can I point you to the lore? You may in fact be dealing with high school drop outs. The technology is lost upon most people. They don't know the science behind stuff anymore. They know little more than the fact that taking this part out of that machine causes that machine to break.
thing is, there is no problem with the game as a whole... Not to most people, and certainly not to alex.
No one can love everything about the game, heck I have a lot of complaints on my own, but I brought them up to suggestion, alex and the community in general said not really into that, so I took the matter into my own hands
Many people play personal mods (afaik). I think ships are too floaty for their strength, battles are too short, and fighters are a little too weak for front line combatants. Therefore, in my mod, ships have half their turn rate and turn acceleration, all weapons have double ammo, half damage and half flux cost; and fighters get double speed across the board so they serve another role than brawling. I also have every single ship losing CR over time cuz I think the current CR is way too forgiving :o
That's the way I'm playing SF, and that's probably the only way I'll ever play SF, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's highly unlikely that alex will change everything you asked.
I do...and people...stop telling me to edit the damn variables....that solves the problem for me...not the game in whole...so no i wont...i will speak my mind and yes i complain alot..when im nice im ignoredDo I know you from the Zero-K forums?
......I don't suppose you'd be willing to upload that as a mod? That actually sounds pretty fun
I do...and people...stop telling me to edit the damn variables....that solves the problem for me...not the game in whole...so no i wont...i will speak my mind and yes i complain alot..when im nice im ignored
Maybe you're ignored when you're nice, but the way you're going about it right now the only difference will be/is that you get insulted before you get ignored.
But regardless of how you go about it, winning vs losing a battle is a binary condition, so there's always going to be a hard boundary there. Sometimes, you're just going to suffer a very close defeat, and it's going to sting, as close defeats do. It'll probably sting less if the reasons are crystal clear - at least you can learn from it and move on.
I know that there are alot being said by both sides and not only by these two sides. But in the end, if we think realistically, these long threads about new systems in v.0.6 are not very productive.
and dont say maintaining a ship is hard work or stressful because every other sci fi or game has spaceships and they are managed and maintained very well
and dont say maintaining a ship is hard work or stressful because every other sci fi or game has spaceships and they are managed and maintained very well
Quick question: Is this every other sci-fi? Exactly.
Have to say first: Thanks for continuing your work on Starsector, Alex! ;D
The way I see it CR is sort of campaign level "damage", overall maintenance level of the ship, and damage to non-combat-critical systems etc. Therefore I hope that the few suggestions about having CR being influenced during combat by combat events are not seriously considered. We have regular damage for that. Having two damage systems (on top of flux which is kind of temporary damage) would be redundant and would take away the elegant simplifaction that comes with the concept of CR.
But regardless of how you go about it, winning vs losing a battle is a binary condition, so there's always going to be a hard boundary there. Sometimes, you're just going to suffer a very close defeat, and it's going to sting, as close defeats do. It'll probably sting less if the reasons are crystal clear - at least you can learn from it and move on.
I have to disagree with this. Winning and losing are binary only in sports with strict rules. In war and in a long campaign the distinction between losing and winning is not as easily determined. Related to this, the strict limits on deploying 0% CR ships seems a bit artificial and it creates very odd situations as have been mentioned in the forums. It also creates situations where the player can potentially get a hold of very powerful ships (or their loot) by attacking fleets after very large fights. Seeing that there is a huge capital ship, no matter how crippled, should be a fearsome sight for couple frigates.
You could argue that CR of the death star in the return of the jedi would have been close to 0% but it was still pretty fearsome for a certain fish-faced admiral ;)
I don't really like it when I cannot even put up some semblance of a fight... even when the odds would otherwise suggest a favorable matchup. The way I see it, an undamaged 1% CR Onslaught should still be able to fend off a 100% CR Shuttle, however ugly and messy it might be.
Considering how stiff the 0% CR penalties are, I think I can support letting ships deploy at empty CR as long as fielding the ship still costs supplies after the battle.
I still think we should be allowed to deploy non-CR ships with some penalties. I don't care that the shield doesn't work, half the engines won't start, and the guns might blow up when I fire them, I still want to go down fighting. Currently the game simply tells you via some text that you can't deploy your ship, and if the enemy pursues, you once again just get some text telling you the controls are locked because the ship isn't CR. I don't know about you but I don't really consider being told "you lost, tough luck" by some text to be very fun. I'd much prefer to make a desperate last stand with a ship that's falling apart. Go out in a blaze of glory rather than just sit there and helplessly watch an uncontrollable ship be torn apart. IMO that would be a much more satisfying way to lose.
I know that there are alot being said by both sides and not only by these two sides. But in the end, if we think realistically, these long threads about new systems in v.0.6 are not very productive. I think that Histidine, despite that we disagreed on some things in several threads, proposed one of the best solutions in this thread http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6790.0 .
Not to mention that it's not even true. Millennium Falcon, anyone? Or Firefly? "Oh hey, our engine broke and we don't have the spare part we need. I guess we're all dead." That episode is even referenced in one of the skill descriptions in Starsector.
All this talk about deploying ships at 0 CR is giving me an idea. Which I won't talk about until having tried it out! But, I'm very much a fan of managing dwindling resources, (ill-fated) last stands, etc, and if it works, it could be very much in line with that.
Not to mention that it's not even true. Millennium Falcon, anyone? Or Firefly? "Oh hey, our engine broke and we don't have the spare part we need. I guess we're all dead." That episode is even referenced in one of the skill descriptions in Starsector.
I'm curious, which one? I may have stuck that in there subconsciously as I was watching it around that time, but it wasn't intentional, I think :)
I found after a battle that my supplies per day goes up to like 30 a day! With no real understanding or indication of why
The most annoying thing I've found with the update is there is no real indication as to why supplies go down excessively.
I found after a battle that my supplies per day goes up to like 30 a day! With no real understanding or indication of why
The most annoying thing I've found with the update is there is no real indication as to why supplies go down excessively.
I found after a battle that my supplies per day goes up to like 30 a day! With no real understanding or indication of why
I think it's for replenishing CR and/or repairs
CR is fine. Supplies are killing this game. They add too much unnecessary bother about them and limit possibilities while providing no fun challenges to overcome.
Ships whose maximum CR have dropped below their current CR do lose it gradually other than Mothballing.
And no, I would not want Mothballing to have my ship locked in 'mothball' state for a week before I could even begin trying to reactivate it.
You can't play 0.6a with the same typical decisions you make in other games. And it's hard to think "What do I need to do to make this AI fleet be an effective and sustainable killing machine?" instead of "How do I make my ship better at exploding other ships?"Well yeah, that's the point of the game. Starsector isn't a space shooter, it's a mixture of that and a strategy game where you command a fleet. Sure, you can play it as a space shooter, and I do, but it's pretty clearly not supposed to be played that way. Of course you're going to run into problems if you try to play a game as something else than it is. I for one view the fact that you have to learn to play this game as something positive. If you didn't have to learn anything, that would mean the game's exactly the same as every other space game, and what's the point of that?
The intention of CR is to be a means of artificially constraining players maximum or fastest ability to build up resources over time ...
Tip for respawning in a dram - just go to a station and sell the fuel. You should have enough money to buy a frigate (especially with selling the dram). Then hunt Buffalo's until you have some reserve cash BEFORE buying more ships.
Tip for respawning in a dram - just go to a station and sell the fuel. You should have enough money to buy a frigate (especially with selling the dram). Then hunt Buffalo's until you have some reserve cash BEFORE buying more ships.
People who don't play an eight-minute tutorial shouldn't complain about being chewed up and spit out.The thing is though is that there is NO tutorial about this CR stuff! That was the first thing I checked when I got the new update.
Other than that: yeah, I agree completely.
I'd generalize the death spiral problem to: the game doesn't warn you ahead of time about all the supplies you're going to be using.
One idea I had was to alleviate the problem was to add 200 supplies to the Abandoned Storage Facility as an "emergency stash" that newbies could raid if they somehow found themselves in a plunge. Aside from the problem of pointing players to it, however, I suspected that the kind of newbie who'd need something like that would just end up hauling it to the Hegemony station and selling all of it, buying a cruiser, and ending up in exactly the rut it was supposed to prevent.
People who don't play an eight-minute tutorial shouldn't complain about being chewed up and spit out.
Other than that: yeah, I agree completely.
I'd generalize the death spiral problem to: the game doesn't warn you ahead of time about all the supplies you're going to be using.
One idea I had was to alleviate the problem was to add 200 supplies to the Abandoned Storage Facility as an "emergency stash" that newbies could raid if they somehow found themselves in a plunge. Aside from the problem of pointing players to it, however, I suspected that the kind of newbie who'd need something like that would just end up hauling it to the Hegemony station and selling all of it, buying a cruiser, and ending up in exactly the rut it was supposed to prevent.
So full really isn't full, but double, and half really isn't half, but normal???
I had a close fight. I ran out of supplies. Bought more at the station. Ran out of supplies again while waiting for combat readiness to go up to the point where my ships could fight something. I ran out of money. I sold some ships and mothballed others to buy more supplies. My last two ships in the fleet are still eating up all supplies before reaching a point where they can fight anything.So another way of interrupting it is this: You didn't have enough money or supplies to get your fleet back up to a point where it could function in battle. There is no supply drain trap. Most ships in the game can carry enough supplies to deploy anywhere from 4-30 times. The average is about 11 excluding freighters. On the other hand, almost no ships can carry enough to repair themselves even once (from say 1% hull and no armour (aside from freighters)). This makes sense, since I imagine a 1% hull ship with no armour, is a ship so badly damaged it's a miracle it can even move. And people are hardly gonna carry around enough supplies to rebuild most of a ship.
I registered only to say this: combat readiness is currently horrible and only detracts from the good things in the game.
PS: I've sold everything I own to buy supplies but I never managed to escape the supply drain trap. Since selling my last ship is impossible, I now have to go out and lose it in battle.
A ship that runs out of supplies should always be able to fight.
PPS: I tried to lose my ship in battle, but somehow combat ends in a few seconds with my 0% cr ship. In the end, I lost the ship to an accident. I respawned in a Dram and went out searching for something to kill. Comically, I didn't find anything I could take on before running out of supplies. Now I'm just waiting for another accident so I hopefully respawn in a non-*** ship.
If you make bad tactical choices, lose several battles in a row and fail to produce enough money to maintain your ships, then yes I'm pretty sure the consequence should be to die horribly in the cold depths of space while the engine breaks down and the life support fails (lucky they don't go that far eh?).
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
If you make bad tactical choices, lose several battles in a row and fail to produce enough money to maintain your ships, then yes I'm pretty sure the consequence should be to die horribly in the cold depths of space while the engine breaks down and the life support fails (lucky they don't go that far eh?).
I won all battles you reading comprehension impaired moron.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
If you make bad tactical choices, lose several battles in a row and fail to produce enough money to maintain your ships, then yes I'm pretty sure the consequence should be to die horribly in the cold depths of space while the engine breaks down and the life support fails (lucky they don't go that far eh?).
I won all battles you reading comprehension impaired moron.
2. I never said you lost your battles. Funny how people seem to notice their own faults in others.
If you make bad tactical choices, lose several battles in a row and fail to produce enough money to maintain your ships, then yes I'm pretty sure the consequence should be to die horribly in the cold depths of space while the engine breaks down and the life support fails (lucky they don't go that far eh?).
I won all battles you reading comprehension impaired moron.
"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!"
^Quote from: Silver Silence"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!"
EDIT:
I guess I should probably drop this (https://www.dropbox.com/s/c20qhus87oikb46/ship_data_ezmode.csv) in here. It will reduce all supply/day costs on ships to 1 supply/day and ships will only lose 1CR to be fielded in battle. 'Course, this makes ships immune to the being-worn-down-by-harrying tactic that a lot of people are employing to get easier kills but it will mean you can keep up to date with mods and the like.
The intention of CR is to be a means of artificially constraining players maximum or fastest ability to build up resources over time ...
Well... the main goal of CR is to provide the player with a framework that lets them make more interesting decisions and leads to more interesting battles. If managed properly, I don't think it acts as a constraint on income, at least not compared to the previous release.
All in all, though, I generally agree both about the fleet growth curve and the difficulty curve. As I probably mentioned earlier, both of those need other mechanics in place (economy, trade, production, etc) before I can really delve into addressing them. I do want to do a few things to make it easier on new players in the short term, though.
In terms of fixing Harry, I have an idea.
Sometimes, but not always, the AI should choose to Ambush the Harry attempt.
This should lead to a shorter-than-usual battlefield size (i.e., less room to maneuver), and the Player's chosen Harry ships should be put into a battle vs. the fleet being Harried, with no reinforcements.
This would make Harry a fun and challenging experience, and if the AI was given the same choices, it might make for some really fun moments for the player, trying to get away from a superior fleet.
This should lead to a shorter-than-usual battlefield size (i.e., less room to maneuver), and the Player's chosen Harry ships should be put into a battle vs. the fleet being Harried, with no reinforcements.
In terms of fixing Harry, I have an idea.I don't like this idea at all. Why would I ever use harry if there's a chance it puts me into a bad fight? I only even get the option against weaker fleets anyway. I'm not gonna risk some of my ships getting in a fight that can destroy them (and even if a bad fight does happen, I may very well just retreat all my ships). The whole point of harrying is for the hunter to make the prey weaker, before it goes for the kill.
Sometimes, but not always, the AI should choose to Ambush the Harry attempt.
This should lead to a shorter-than-usual battlefield size (i.e., less room to maneuver), and the Player's chosen Harry ships should be put into a battle vs. the fleet being Harried, with no reinforcements.
This would make Harry a fun and challenging experience, and if the AI was given the same choices, it might make for some really fun moments for the player, trying to get away from a superior fleet.
Thanks Alex, can you expand on how CR is intended to provide 'more interesting decisions' and 'more interesting battles'? My experience has led to seeing flagships being deployed less often (late game), and at some point when your fleet is bigger than anyone else's they are only for show and never get deployed due to opponents fleeing. Although it's a bit irrelevant as the game is not near completion and only a fraction of the complete framework is in place.
This should lead to a shorter-than-usual battlefield size (i.e., less room to maneuver), and the Player's chosen Harry ships should be put into a battle vs. the fleet being Harried, with no reinforcements.
You dont get to choose ships for Harry, though. It would be most annyoing to have to choose ships for something that, in most cases, doesnt lead to anything but a text message.
You dont get to choose ships for Harry, though. It would be most annyoing to have to choose ships for something that, in most cases, doesnt lead to anything but a text message.Choose once, then never have to bother again?
There's no stealth in space, you can't ambush people.There is "stealth in space" in the Starsector universe, otherwise there wouldn't be Fog of War and Phase Cloaks would never have been invented. Anyhow, it's a game idea that would make Harry interesting, risky and (imo) fun.
In a nutshell, what I meant there is that battles are likely to have more even forces on each side, which makes them more challenging. Deploying an overwhelming force every time isn't "interesting". The "interesting decision" I mentioned is how much to deploy. You're measuring the cost of the deployment vs the payoff vs the risk if you don't deploy enough. Ideally, what you want to do - what's most economic - is to deploy the absolute least you can while ensuring you don't take significant losses. So, I really like that as a dynamic; with the optimal way to play also naturally being more challenging, and also letting the player challenge themselves to the degree they're comfortable with.That makes sense only if you have enough Logistics to have a fleet, which requires Leadership. Even a lone battleship needs 1 Leadership. If player wants to ignore Leadership to have a super ship or two, he will probably play all ships because he does not have any other ships to use. Sure, Leadership is probably the most powerful tree, due to Fleet Logistics skill, but I rather play a small squad of elite ships because ships are too weak and/or slow without bonuses from Combat and Technology.
In a nutshell, what I meant there is that battles are likely to have more even forces on each side, which makes them more challenging. Deploying an overwhelming force every time isn't "interesting". The "interesting decision" I mentioned is how much to deploy. You're measuring the cost of the deployment vs the payoff vs the risk if you don't deploy enough. Ideally, what you want to do - what's most economic - is to deploy the absolute least you can while ensuring you don't take significant losses. So, I really like that as a dynamic; with the optimal way to play also naturally being more challenging, and also letting the player challenge themselves to the degree they're comfortable with.I'm a professional game designer, and here what i have to say.
In a nutshell, what I meant there is that battles are likely to have more even forces on each side, which makes them more challenging. Deploying an overwhelming force every time isn't "interesting". The "interesting decision" I mentioned is how much to deploy. You're measuring the cost of the deployment vs the payoff vs the risk if you don't deploy enough. Ideally, what you want to do - what's most economic - is to deploy the absolute least you can while ensuring you don't take significant losses. So, I really like that as a dynamic; with the optimal way to play also naturally being more challenging, and also letting the player challenge themselves to the degree they're comfortable with.I'm a professional game designer, and here what i have to say.
I did a while ago this kind a approach for my Starcraft 2 map(i use sc2 as testing platform for my ideas), heres what i learned:
On start self balancing combat, where mobs and players always mostly equal in strength, was working very good. But as players gained more levels and powers this approach failed hard. Every one likes to see progression in game. From small ship to big fleet of battleships, from week guns to super powerful doomsday weapons. And in the end killing something you could not kill was ultimate reward. Right now CR limits player from using all his(her) fleet in battle and in the end player dosen see a progression. All he(she) see is a handful of frigates fighting all game. Plus burn system makes it impossible to play with big endgame ships, cos they so slow and you cant get in to combat.
Lets look at spaz for example:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships to get them for your self, and than you start carnage by killing every bigass ship that was a threat to you not long ago, ultimately you having lots of fun and almost no grief.
Now lets look at starsector now:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships. And when you finally get them your self you realize that you cant use them cos of supply cost + so little number of battles that they can fight(cos of low speed). So you get no fleet to fleet battles and even when you do find that bigass fleet that you cloud catch, you findout that you have to divide those hard earn ships to "play it strategically". So in the end you have few battles with almost no interest cos there are maybe 2-3 ships from your fleet.With gives you lots of pain and grief by managing those scares supply and even more pain waiting to restore CR.
In a nutshell, what I meant there is that battles are likely to have more even forces on each side, which makes them more challenging. Deploying an overwhelming force every time isn't "interesting". The "interesting decision" I mentioned is how much to deploy. You're measuring the cost of the deployment vs the payoff vs the risk if you don't deploy enough. Ideally, what you want to do - what's most economic - is to deploy the absolute least you can while ensuring you don't take significant losses. So, I really like that as a dynamic; with the optimal way to play also naturally being more challenging, and also letting the player challenge themselves to the degree they're comfortable with.I'm a professional game designer, and here what i have to say.
I did a while ago this kind a approach for my Starcraft 2 map(i use sc2 as testing platform for my ideas), heres what i learned:
On start self balancing combat, where mobs and players always mostly equal in strength, was working very good. But as players gained more levels and powers this approach failed hard. Every one likes to see progression in game. From small ship to big fleet of battleships, from week guns to super powerful doomsday weapons. And in the end killing something you could not kill was ultimate reward. Right now CR limits player from using all his(her) fleet in battle and in the end player dosen see a progression. All he(she) see is a handful of frigates fighting all game. Plus burn system makes it impossible to play with big endgame ships, cos they so slow and you cant get in to combat.
Lets look at spaz for example:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships to get them for your self, and than you start carnage by killing every bigass ship that was a threat to you not long ago, ultimately you having lots of fun and almost no grief.
Now lets look at starsector now:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships. And when you finally get them your self you realize that you cant use them cos of supply cost + so little number of battles that they can fight(cos of low speed). So you get no fleet to fleet battles and even when you do find that bigass fleet that you cloud catch, you findout that you have to divide those hard earn ships to "play it strategically". So in the end you have few battles with almost no interest cos there are maybe 2-3 ships from your fleet.With gives you lots of pain and grief by managing those scares supply and even more pain waiting to restore CR.
I'm a professional game designer, and here what i have to say.The way I see it, taking SPAZ as example once again, when you finally get to fly larger ships, there's little to no incentive/reason to fly smaller ship ever... it almost felt like a waste of resource if you do not fill the ship slot with the biggest ship it allows. So, you just grind so you can get enough Righthook/Hammerhead blueprints so you're finally even, and never look back... not to mention there's little to no cost in losing a ship, let alone maintenance.
I did a while ago this kind a approach for my Starcraft 2 map(i use sc2 as testing platform for my ideas), heres what i learned:
On start self balancing combat, where mobs and players always mostly equal in strength, was working very good. But as players gained more levels and powers this approach failed hard. Every one likes to see progression in game. From small ship to big fleet of battleships, from week guns to super powerful doomsday weapons. And in the end killing something you could not kill was ultimate reward. Right now CR limits player from using all his(her) fleet in battle and in the end player dosen see a progression. All he(she) see is a handful of frigates fighting all game. Plus burn system makes it impossible to play with big endgame ships, cos they so slow and you cant get in to combat.
Lets look at spaz for example:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships to get them for your self, and than you start carnage by killing every bigass ship that was a threat to you not long ago, ultimately you having lots of fun and almost no grief.
Now lets look at starsector now:
You start with harmless ship, and you struggle bigger ships. And when you finally get them your self you realize that you cant use them cos of supply cost + so little number of battles that they can fight(cos of low speed). So you get no fleet to fleet battles and even when you do find that bigass fleet that you cloud catch, you findout that you have to divide those hard earn ships to "play it strategically". So in the end you have few battles with almost no interest cos there are maybe 2-3 ships from your fleet.With gives you lots of pain and grief by managing those scares supply and even more pain waiting to restore CR.
There are mods that add bosses for those that want further challenge. ::)I know and i think il make one my self in some time, but still it is a solution to end game problem.
There are mods that add bosses for those that want further challenge. ::)I know and i think il make one my self in some time, but still it is a solution to end game problem.
Added:
I thought about your words about mods and came up with this:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6898.0 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6898.0)
GL & HF ;D
However I would be more happy by adding some restrictions to harry. I thought maybe adding a temporal decrease to the maximun burn, something like if you chose to harry, the enemy gets its CR reduced but you get your max burn reduced by 1 for a day, if you can still catch the fleeing fleet and chose to harry again, the enmy CR gets reduced again and you get the harry penalties added on top of what you had, so max burn gets reduced by 2 on a 2 day coldown. This way you can only harry the enemy fleet as long as your fleet can catch it. I originally thought to just reset the timer, however that way you could just easily wait the time and then catch it and repeat.
Every one likes to see progression in game. From small ship to big fleet of battleships, from week guns to super powerful doomsday weapons. And in the end killing something you could not kill was ultimate reward. Right now CR limits player from using all his(her) fleet in battle and in the end player dosen see a progression. All he(she) see is a handful of frigates fighting all game. Plus burn system makes it impossible to play with big endgame ships, cos they so slow and you cant get in to combat.(emphasis mine)
Not sure why one would go for one other than rule of coolWell, rule of cool is probably a reasonably good reason in itself. Moreover, Death Star solo "fleets" have precedent in lots of space opera, so it'd be nice if the game supported the playstyle to an extent.
While I don't go trying to take down small rubbish fleets, even carrier groups run.....Unless the carrier group is significantly understrength due to ship losses or low CR, that sounds like a bug.
But surely a capital vessel SHOULD be self sufficient, it's just silly otherwiseThey are for the most part. The Onslaught has enough cargo space to deploy 5 times, the Conquest, Odyssey and Astral 4 times and Paragon 2 times. Realistically after that many deployments they won't have enough supplies to get back to full CR (due to base drain), and there's no way they could repair themselves from heavy damage. You'd need lots freighters (or a single Atlas) to have enough supplies to repair heavy damage. Otherwise you have to go back to a station, which makes sense.
While I don't go trying to take down small rubbish fleets, even carrier groups run.....(Also, if the Atlas is slowing you down too much, that's probably because it's hugely overkill for the purpose. Either add a couple of tugs/Unstable Injector/Navigation level 5, or ditch it and get some destroyer-sized freighters or Hounds. Or just don't use freighters at all and accept the couple of days of 0% LR for hauling the loot to nearby stations, although this has complications of its own.)
Yeah, but bleeding through supplies at a rate of 50/day is a bit much.My spreadsheet (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6785.0) says no single ship uses up 50 supplies/day unless it just got beaten up in a fight (counting the crew, undamaged Paragon uses just under half that during its CR recovery phase).
Supply drain should be completely halfed, and then we can see how well that works out
This then prompts the question if players want ship tiers that actually means a 'better' ship really is 'better' in every way as ATM CR also levels the playing field.Exactly my point! There are no progression in game for now, players just keep building up fleets from cheap ships, and dont use anything else.
@The argument that CR is bad because everyone is using cheap ships... Think of this analogy: You don't use a nuke to squash an ant, just like don't you use an Onslaught to squash weak pirate fleet.Lets rephrased it - "don't use an Onslaught" cos most battles can be won with armada of midtech cheap ships, and in the end you even get less supply drain. So yeh...fun system. :-\
I finally remembered what the CR system reminds me of: The magic system in the Infinity Engine games (Baldurs Gate etc.). There you could only use a limited number of spells of each level on a day, the higher the level the fewer spells of it you could use. That meant you really had to decide how much of a thread each enemy was, is a Magic Missile enough or does this one warrant a Meteor Swarm? Then for boss creatures like a dragon you'd rest before the fight and have all you spells at the ready, which made you feel incredible powerful and prepared. It was a great system.And that was scripted liner RPG.
@The argument that CR is bad because everyone is using cheap ships... Think of this analogy: You don't use a nuke to squash an ant, just like don't you use an Onslaught to squash weak pirate fleet.
Lets rephrased it - "don't use an Onslaught" cos most battles can be won with armada of midtech cheap ships, and in the end you even get less supply drain. So yeh...fun system.This is why I use frigate swarms. There are not enough tugs for more than one capital ship and, like Leadership, forcing player to get Navigation 10 just to catch things can delay a player's desired progression. This is NOT a fun system.
@The argument that CR is bad because everyone is using cheap ships... Think of this analogy: You don't use a nuke to squash an ant, just like don't you use an Onslaught to squash weak pirate fleet.Why not? Some battlecruisers were designed with the purpose of killing small ships very quickly with no losses.
Edit:
Here it is. (http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017794/Through-the-Grinder-Refining-Diablo)
Using an H-bomb to kill a rabbit is gloriously fun. CR discourages this - not fun.It's also enormously expensive. CR simulates this.
I have to agree with this. I feel this the big weakness of CR as it stands. It's rather silly that an Onslaught uses so much CR just for turning up to the fight (even if they don't fire a single round). I mean, they've probably been flying around away from port for weeks anyway. Putting on high alert ain't gonna change much.@The argument that CR is bad because everyone is using cheap ships... Think of this analogy: You don't use a nuke to squash an ant, just like don't you use an Onslaught to squash weak pirate fleet.Why not? Some battlecruisers were designed with the purpose of killing small ships very quickly with no losses.
Alex, I'm thinking that the problem with CR is twofold: first, we pay the same price no matter how long the engagement, and how much a ship contribute. 'Just being there' shouldn't cost 30% CR, this is really extreme. I understand that the drills and power cycles that come with being ready to fire and pursue the enemy (or evade it) should cost a flat amount of CR, but right now it is drastic.
And especially, most capital ship should be able to participate in several long engagements before really being weakened by combat unreadiness. They're command centers, have huge crews, lots of supplies and ammo, and redundant systems. They're built to be the center of a fleet.
Using an H-bomb to kill a rabbit is gloriously fun. CR discourages this - not fun.
Lets rephrased it - "don't use an Onslaught" cos most battles can be won with armada of midtech cheap ships, and in the end you even get less supply drain. So yeh...fun system. :-\
Capital ships aren't unviable, they're just not very useful. They're very expensive, they lack the flexibility of frigates, they cost vast amounts of resources and their advantages (staying power) aren't really exploitable in the current format, because speed is key (you want to avoid 'balanced' engagement because they imply losses, but it's hard to fight on your own terms with capitals)
It's also enormously expensive. CR simulates this.It does, and it is a fun killer as it stands.
PS. Also I have to wonder... Can you really stop an Onslaught or three with a fleet of frigates? (And I mean a realistic fleet, not 10 hyperions).One Onslaught, no problem. You may lose a ship due to AI stupidity. Three, doable, but casualties are almost a given. This is a fight where capitals shine, but they are rare. Fighting one Paragon is nasty for frigate swarms, probably on par with two Onslaughts.
QuoteIt's also enormously expensive. CR simulates this.It does, and it is a fun killer as it stands.QuotePS. Also I have to wonder... Can you really stop an Onslaught or three with a fleet of frigates? (And I mean a realistic fleet, not 10 hyperions).One Onslaught, no problem. You may lose a ship due to AI stupidity. Three, doable, but casualties are almost a given. This is a fight where capitals shine, but they are rare. Fighting one Paragon is nasty for frigate swarms, probably on par with two Onslaughts.
I don't see a problem with this, seeing as in the final game you aren't supposed to see capital ships very often at all.The problem now is speed is key, and capital ships are too slow and consume too much to be worth using except for the rare system defense fleet battle. In previous versions, more fleet compositions were effective. Frigate swarms, destroyer swarms, cruiser squads, lone battleship, carrier groups. Now, it is just frigate swarms for most battles.
I chase after every last fleet that comes my way because I need the XP. Otherwise, my soft cap would be in the upper 20's or low 30's. The XP adds up.I suspect that in the time it takes you to run down three small fleets, you could kill one large fleet and get the same or more XP.
Using an H-bomb to kill a rabbit is gloriously fun. CR discourages this - not fun.
If you really find the equivalent of nuking a rabbit that fun, then mod Starsector accordingly (or just play missions), or play a different game that's designed from the ground up for this purpose (I found that the Elephantbird levels in Atom Zombie Smasher performed the rabbit-nuking function quite well - but even AZS lets you do it only a few times per playthrough; I'm sure someone can think of a better example). Otherwise, once the novelty wears off, the complaint that the game treats dropping H-bombs on small, defenseless herbivores as unproductive (like pretty much every other game, as Gothars noted) is going to sound really, really silly.QuoteIt's also enormously expensive. CR simulates this.It does, and it is a fun killer as it stands.
...its really not so strange a concept as you want to make it seem. In every shooter, if I use the rocket launcher to kill a single grunt I'm playing bad and the game punishes me. In every strategy game, if I use the orbital strike to kill a single scout I'm playing bad and the game punishes me.Again wrong type of game...
I don't see people complaining that they can't use rocket launchers and nukes all the time in those games, though.
Exceptions are deliberately silly games, but obviously Sector is not one of those.
Then I suppose it's a matter of metagame, not of CR, or of the game itself. Like you said, capital are good when you need to fight against SDF, and I agree that in such fight the cost is justifiable.... there are uses for everything..... so I'll say use the right tool for the right job.QuoteI don't see a problem with this, seeing as in the final game you aren't supposed to see capital ships very often at all.The problem now is speed is key, and capital ships are too slow and consume too much to be worth using except for the rare system defense fleet battle. In previous versions, more fleet compositions were effective. Frigate swarms, destroyer swarms, cruiser squads, lone battleship, carrier groups. Now, it is just frigate swarms for most battles.
I suspect that in the time it takes you to run down three small fleets, you could kill one large fleet and get the same or more XP.I kill those too. If I do not, my soft cap would be lower than the upper 30's, just as if I ignore the numerous small fleets. Thing is, frigate swarms are effective against large fleets too, if they are not system defense fleet strength. Even then, it is possible for frigate swarms to kill defense fleets with minimal casualties, but that is when you should bring out the big ships. Problem is the defense fleets are rare. By the time another defense fleet spawns, I can clear the system of pirates and other riff-raff once or twice with frigate swarms and gain a nice chuck of XP and loot.
If you really find the equivalent of nuking a rabbit that fun, then mod Starsector accordingly (or just play missions)Missions are not fun. No skills/perks makes most ships a pain to use.
PS. Also I have to wonder... Can you really stop an Onslaught or three with a fleet of frigates? (And I mean a realistic fleet, not 10 hyperions).One Onslaught, no problem. You may lose a ship due to AI stupidity. Three, doable, but casualties are almost a given. This is a fight where capitals shine, but they are rare. Fighting one Paragon is nasty for frigate swarms, probably on par with two Onslaughts.
And linear games aren't meant to have progression? o_O...its really not so strange a concept as you want to make it seem. In every shooter, if I use the rocket launcher to kill a single grunt I'm playing bad and the game punishes me. In every strategy game, if I use the orbital strike to kill a single scout I'm playing bad and the game punishes me.Again wrong type of game...
I don't see people complaining that they can't use rocket launchers and nukes all the time in those games, though.
Exceptions are deliberately silly games, but obviously Sector is not one of those.
Sandbox games meant to have progression.
I agree that in liner or skirmish games use of big guns is just plain stupid but in campaign mode we have a sandbox game and it have to have balance enabling player to play any style they want without having lots of pain. Right now game can only be played "smart".There's nothing actually preventing you from smashing little pirate fleets with your double capital fleet (aside from the fact that they run away, but that has nothing to do with CR), or throwing mass Lashers against the Hegemony SDF. It's wasteful, but that just means you have to spend more time
Besides, I did not get Starsector to mod the game to fix problems.My initial response was "you're the only one who thinks it ("it" being the the lack of a gameplay style as described by the "H-bomb on rabbit" line) is a problem," but even that doesn't adequately describe the nature of the contention. The way I see it, this "problem" is akin to complaining that you have to worry about dysentery and other nasty diseases in Oregon Trail, or that you have to carefully monitor your health and ammunition in the older Resident Evil games.
As long as Starsector is unfinished, I see no reason I should not give feedback if the game gets worse as it develops.
...No, it goes further than that. It's akin to complaining that there's (almost) no stealth elements (or, for that matter, rabbit-nuking equivalents) in Call of Duty!In this case, it is a fun element that existed in a previous version taken away, and I want it back before the game gets finished. I want a wider variety of effective fleet compositions, not frigate swarms for 95% for all battles.
You could just... not... if you don't want to. To be honest I don't even think frigate swarms are very effective.I so wish it was that simple. I tried various combinations, and in the end, I found frigate swarms the best at everything except the rare system fleet battle. Destroyers aside from carriers and freighters do not offer anything two frigates cannot, and they slow down your fleet. Cruisers are like mini-capitals, they are slow and eat supplies, but they lack the raw power of a true capital.
Its true that capital ships are not all that valuable in pursuit scenarios. My advice: fight bigger fleets so they don't run.By late game, the only fleets big enough not to run are system defense fleets and supply fleets. Even then, they hold back ships and you need to chase down the survivors if you want the max XP and loot.
The obvious solution to capital ships being unloved is to make them more powerful.They are powerful enough. They could be a bit less taxing on logistics (or have default logistics at 25 or 30 instead or 20.) The best solution I can think of is make the retreat border of the first battle at the opposing side so that big ships have a chance to kill little ships. In follow-up battles, pursuit can work as it is.
I think as is CR wise low tech ships are a lot better for what campaign does (ie repeatedly chasing down other fleets for money). Which kinda makes sense - low tech ships are designed for long term repeated engagements while high techs are meant for precision strikesIndeed, once the player can get enough of the best ballistics, Lasher swarms are murderous. They can kite, chew through shields and break things.
Do you think Starsector is going to be a game about chasing Buffalo IIs forever?I cannot give feedback for Starsector of the future, only what it is, and it is about chasing everything that moves.
QuoteI don't see a problem with this, seeing as in the final game you aren't supposed to see capital ships very often at all.The problem now is speed is key, and capital ships are too slow and consume too much to be worth using except for the rare system defense fleet battle. In previous versions, more fleet compositions were effective. Frigate swarms, destroyer swarms, cruiser squads, lone battleship, carrier groups. Now, it is just frigate swarms for most battles.
Im pretty sure there will be ways in the future in which the enemy will HAVE to fight you (for instance, by defending or attacking a planet) and you WILL be wanting to use overwhelming force. In which case, having a slow fleet with capital ships and their support, will be no problem. Do you think Starsector is going to be a game about chasing Buffalo IIs forever?I'm telling this from gamedev point of view:
Asking for a core game mechanic to be neutered just because the game is in a transitory phase is pretty meaningless, and you are in fact playing an alpha. Until the game fleshes out, feel free to use any spreadsheet editing program to mod CR out of the picture entirely/ cut supply costs across the board/ change the way AI responds to your fleet. If it's that important, then it shouldn't be a big effort.
We all want this to be the best 2D/4X space game out there, so let's work together on a solution.I will think about it on my way home from work, and then maybe il find some solution. Right now everything coming to my mind ends up duplicating damage repair system. And that not a solution.
QuoteI don't see a problem with this, seeing as in the final game you aren't supposed to see capital ships very often at all.The problem now is speed is key, and capital ships are too slow and consume too much to be worth using except for the rare system defense fleet battle. In previous versions, more fleet compositions were effective. Frigate swarms, destroyer swarms, cruiser squads, lone battleship, carrier groups. Now, it is just frigate swarms for most battles.
Completely agree
What I would like from the proponents of the first CR iteration is more understanding of our perspective, we're often dismissed as simply not playing the game correctly.Speaking frankly? I'd say that really is the problem with a lot of the complaints about CR (though by no means all, not necessarily even a majority), which either required only mild adaptation of playstyle to fix, or involved things that have no business being viable in the final game anyhow.
What I'd like to see is understanding, compromise or suggestions that can make CR better than it is so that both parties can be satisfied.
So back to being a gamer: CR is too match* realism in an arcade game ;D
The good thing is everyone is passionate about Starsector and wants the game to be great. : )
1) Supplies are too expensive, which means that if you forget to save up enough for repairs and recovery, you get into the infamous death spiral. (newb trap)
2) CR recovery times are long to the point of being difficult to believe.
3) Ships can be completely rendered helpless by being brought down to <10% CR, which breaks suspension of disbelief.
4) The cost of fielding a ship is decoupled from what actually happens in the battle it's sent into. This manifests itself in two ways:
-4a: Ships cost a flat amount to deploy regardless of how much fighting they actually do.
-4b: The "hard-foughtness" of a battle (as used to calculate CR recovery from the stand down option) is based linearly on the DP value of enemies destroyed, which results in the "5 Hounds sent one at a time renders capital ship completely helpless" problem (it's actually way harder than that, and the AI will never realistically use it, but the fact that it's possible suggests a problem nevertheless"
Ok what changed:
They are faster.
They have a timer.
Weaker? I don't know I barely ever reach the timer duration. I say they are stronger.
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
Damn straight! +100 points to you sir!
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
Damn straight! +100 points to you sir!
And one more point on top of those.
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
Also: if you are near any station, you don't need a freighter. You can carry massively more loot than the cargo size for a short time - just sell it before your CR degrades/it consumes itself.Freighters are useful for letting me fight more than one battle before I need to offload my spoils.
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
Damn straight! +100 points to you sir!
And one more point on top of those.
Only one? id add another 100. :o
On supply costs - why is the death spiral a bad thing?
Aren't we allowed to lose at games anymore? What's wrong with dying and rolling up a new character, having learnt from the last one?
Damn straight! +100 points to you sir!
And one more point on top of those.
Only one? id add another 100. :o
Alright you masochists, I have the perfect game for you - Prince of Persia! (The original) ;D
But seriously folks the most commercially successful games do not have a difficulty curve like the current 0.6, this has already been discussed in another thread. I want this game to be commercially successful so it can be improved upon, the development team can grow and eventually StarSector 2 can be released...IN 3D
Ok, here is another potential piece of the puzzle in improving CR and may help new players.
At the moment if you go above your logistics capability you're penalised on CR and supply usage. How about instead you get a boost if you're under your logistics rating.
As a new user with a hound I start with between 20 and 44 logistics rating points depending on initial skills, and with the wolf use 3 points only. Let's start with a -1% deployment CR cost per LR rating, and +1% CR recovery per LR, -1% to CR recovery cost
Min. -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost
You can tweak these values as needed for balance. We could try to tweak it to be free as well. 2%
Min. -28% CR Cost per deployment, + 28% to recovery rate + 28% less CR recovery supply cost (not bad, nearly a third less)
Max -82% CR per deployment + 82% to recovery rate + 82% less CR recovery supply cost (this would avert a death spiral)
As the player grows their fleet they get less fleet logistic bonus and are eased into CR.
This would need to be play tested and tweaked, but I think it may help.
This bonus would certainly give an advantage to smaller fleets, but any small fleet still has the disadvantage of being small and unable to compete with larger ones. Another thought may be to give an extra 1 burn speed for each 10, 15 or 20 LR points unused. Or you get +1 burn at 10, +2 burn at 25, +3 burn at 40 (needs tweaking) So potentially an initial player could look at:
Min. +1 to burn speed, -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max +4 to burn speed, -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost
What effect this may have on the game is
- Slowly eased into the game
- Smaller fleets are still competitive with larger fleets in terms of Return on Investment due to fast CR recovery and burn speed
- Player keeps larger ships at still kept at abandoned storage until needed to take on defence fleets (bad, micromanagement to change fleet composition all the time)
- Large enemy fleets will have more difficulty keeping up with your burn speed (good?)
- Effectively sets most efficient fleet size ROI fleet as less than 100 point LR fleet (bad? disempowering?)
Thoughts? Comments?
I think that many players here don't really want what you can find in recents "commercially successful" games.
I think that many players here don't really want what you can find in recents "commercially successful" games.
I also think 'the market' isn't as stupid as it get's credit for. Make a deep, difficult and challenging game - and if it is good it will do fine.
At the minute Alex has the benefit of having small overheads (at a guess a coupla litres homebrew vodka a day) so that means he can (within reason) define his own terms of success, as well.
...at a guess a coupla litres homebrew vodka a day...
So, me and Upgradecap are FIRMLY in opposition of combat readiness.
And guess what? Here is a 41 minute video of us explaining why.
Note: Bad language. We were furious.
http://youtu.be/GV56nlWEFSk
"COMBAT CONSUMES MORE SUPPLIES THAN YOU MAKE"
I actually agree that the high price of supplies at the moment is a problem - it makes the game both too hard and too easy. If you are a new player, the high cost of supplies sinks you. If you are an experienced player, the high cost of supplies makes it waaaaaay too easy to get money. Enemies dropping less supplies is a possible solution to the latter, muahahahah.
SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
Sounds to me like you listened to a grand total of about ten minutes. If you'd listened to the end to - you'd know I'm not arguing for my sake! I'm done with SS! I don't care! I just want the game which in my opinion is better back, and I want to defend that stance.
Please, everyone - you have to listen to the whole thing. I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points. What I have said there is also far better conveyed than I can in text.
Quote"COMBAT CONSUMES MORE SUPPLIES THAN YOU MAKE"
Yet i managed to fill an entire page of supplies in the heg station, earning several million credits in the process, and fuel my megafleet with it for all eternity.
Long live Low tech!
Why are you being so aggressive? What happened to this community in the time I've been gone?SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
Sounds to me like you listened to a grand total of about ten minutes. If you'd listened to the end to - you'd know I'm not arguing for my sake! I'm done with SS! I don't care! I just want the game which in my opinion is better back, and I want to defend that stance.
Please, everyone - you have to listen to the whole thing. I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points. What I have said there is also far better conveyed than I can in text.
I did, I said where i stopped listening. Arent you clever noticing. Im not listening to 40 minutes of you folks making poor arguments for your sake... there's always playing the last version forever, by the way. Its hilarious that apparently you are too busy to just write a post that will be much faster for people to read but apparently you have an hour to record. If the floundering i heard in that video is better conveyed than a well written post then you dont seem to have an argument worth making.
Quote"COMBAT CONSUMES MORE SUPPLIES THAN YOU MAKE"
Yet i managed to fill an entire page of supplies in the heg station, earning several million credits in the process, and fuel my megafleet with it for all eternity.
Long live Low tech!
Well yes, it's currently very easy to exploit the fact that you can, at no risk, hunt slower and weaker fleets. It's part of the weirdly inverted difficulty curve, where the first half hour is quite challenging then you can quite successfully play the game (if XP, credits and a more powerful fleet is the goal) without ever having to fight a battle yourself.
...
Why are you being so aggressive? What happened to this community in the time I've been gone?
how is it an exploit to hunt smaller fleets? and why do you imply i dont fight anything myself?
SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
Sounds to me like you listened to a grand total of about ten minutes. If you'd listened to the end to - you'd know I'm not arguing for my sake! I'm done with SS! I don't care! I just want the game which in my opinion is better back, and I want to defend that stance.
Please, everyone - you have to listen to the whole thing. I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points. What I have said there is also far better conveyed than I can in text.
0.54a provides nothing of interest to me. As I already mentioned, I am done with SS. I have had hours of enjoyment from Starsector but I am now done with it. Unfortunately, I doubt any level of content can ever really bring me back.snipSNIP You are all horrible. SNIPSNIP
0.54a provides nothing of interest to me. As I already mentioned, I am done with SS. I have had hours of enjoyment from Starsector but I am now done with it. Unfortunately, I doubt any level of content can ever really bring me back.snipSNIP You are all horrible. SNIPSNIP
But if there was anything to motivate me to come back, CR is one thing.
I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points.And I am too busy to listen to a couple of people whine for forty minutes about how they can't play the game properly.
If you're done with it, you sure do take a lot of effort into trying to draw attention to yourself regarding it.That.
There we go with that aggressiveness again...I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points.And I am too busy to listen to a couple of people whine for forty minutes about how they can't play the game properly.If you're done with it, you sure do take a lot of effort into trying to draw attention to yourself regarding it.That.
So lets get one thing straight. No mater what i or anyone else say(even if we all say its bad) it wont change fact that CR system will stay. Most likely it will be rebalanced a lot but fact is a fact - new core system is here.
-4b: The "hard-foughtness" of a battle (as used to calculate CR recovery from the stand down option) is based linearly on the DP value of enemies destroyed, which results in the "5 Hounds sent one at a time renders capital ship completely helpless" problem (it's actually way harder than that, and the AI will never realistically use it, but the fact that it's possible suggests a problem nevertheless)
Okay, (4a). This one's a real pickle, because while it's obviously "wrong" , it's also awfully easy to come up with a "solution" that makes things worse by promoting gamey behavior in order to minmax CR. Like the popular suggestion of using ammo consumption as a factor in the calculation; during 0.6's development, Alex actually came up with the idea of hitting ships with a CR cost for using missiles. Yeah... I think you can see the problem with that one. Damage taken on armor/hull, another popular suggestion, is already modeled by the current repair system.
(4b) should be largely covered by the fix to (4a), but here's an additional idea. Currently the recovery factor seems to run from 100% at no kills to 0% at (killed DP value == own deployed DP value). You could add a constant to it, so it instead scales from (say) 100% at (KDP == DDP*0.5) to 0% at (KDP == DDP*1.5) - this establishes a minimum value to commit in order to whittle down a capital's CR with wave attacks.
SpoilerOk, here is another potential piece of the puzzle in improving CR and may help new players.
At the moment if you go above your logistics capability you're penalised on CR and supply usage. How about instead you get a boost if you're under your logistics rating.
As a new user with a hound I start with between 20 and 44 logistics rating points depending on initial skills, and with the wolf use 3 points only. Let's start with a -1% deployment CR cost per LR rating, and +1% CR recovery per LR, -1% to CR recovery cost
Min. -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost
You can tweak these values as needed for balance. We could try to tweak it to be free as well. 2%
Min. -28% CR Cost per deployment, + 28% to recovery rate + 28% less CR recovery supply cost (not bad, nearly a third less)
Max -82% CR per deployment + 82% to recovery rate + 82% less CR recovery supply cost (this would avert a death spiral)
As the player grows their fleet they get less fleet logistic bonus and are eased into CR.
This would need to be play tested and tweaked, but I think it may help.
This bonus would certainly give an advantage to smaller fleets, but any small fleet still has the disadvantage of being small and unable to compete with larger ones. Another thought may be to give an extra 1 burn speed for each 10, 15 or 20 LR points unused. Or you get +1 burn at 10, +2 burn at 25, +3 burn at 40 (needs tweaking) So potentially an initial player could look at:
Min. +1 to burn speed, -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max +4 to burn speed, -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost
What effect this may have on the game is
- Slowly eased into the game
- Smaller fleets are still competitive with larger fleets in terms of Return on Investment due to fast CR recovery and burn speed
- Player keeps larger ships at still kept at abandoned storage until needed to take on defence fleets (bad, micromanagement to change fleet composition all the time)
- Large enemy fleets will have more difficulty keeping up with your burn speed (good?)
- Effectively sets most efficient fleet size ROI fleet as less than 100 point LR fleet (bad? disempowering?)
Thoughts? Comments?[close]
- Reduce supply consumption. Freighters (and Oxen by extension, due to freighters' slow speed) should be useful for trading runs or extended voyages or raiding parties, not required to pick up all loot from one fight without sending LR to 0%.
- Some way to make more fleet configurations useful as in previous versions.
Funny about the analogy with various level spells being available; was actually going to post something very similar. My comparison would have been spells with different mana costs - say, an expensive AoE vs a cheaper single-target spell. As all analogies, it's not 100% identical, but I think it's largely valid. What that does illustrate is that CR isn't something that limits progression. Well, no more than the mana cost of spells does. You still get more tools you can use, you still get more powerful and able to take on larger challenges, and that's before you consider progression along other axes - like character skills. And you can still overwhelm something weaker badly once in a while, just for the fun of it - or if it happens to be necessary for larger strategic reasons (not currently present).
You're not going to be able to nuke everything from orbit all the time, no. Even if it's the only way to be sure. If that makes the game less fun for you, my apologies, but I strongly believe that allowing that would be, all things considered, a very bad idea.
Aside from that, I don't think the variety of viable fleet configurations has gone down any.
Save that ships don't work as spells. You don't have them at the ready to use at need in a tactical engagement, instead choosing to deploy them is a strategic level choice.
The average engagement shouldn't be watching the same pack of lashers chase retreating ships over and over, because 90% of targets won't fight your core fleet.
Single capitol ship used to be a perfectly reasonable way to play, but now is utterly unworkable.
Alex: The reason I use frigate swarms now is because by late game, most battles are pursuit, and only frigates can catch and kill everything. Bigger ships can sometimes kill the bigger ships in pursuit but have no chance of killing frigates and fighters like they used to. Frigates also use less supplies and are cheaper to replace. The things I miss most when I lose a Lasher or Afflictor in battle are all those rare Light Needlers and/or Railguns I lost.
Why are you being so aggressive? What happened to this community in the time I've been gone?
You are in no way obligated to listen to the video in which we explain our points indepth and very well.
I am in no way obligated to listen to you saying that and can tell you to *** off at my descretion.
>COMBAT CONSUMES MORE SUPPLIES THAN YOU MAKE
Yes it does, if you play a certain style. If you play a huge fleet taking on equally big fleets and use that as your point then i simply won't listen to you making your point based on that until you experience the fact that small fleets actually get hit by this, and pretty hard. Right now, there's no way to make money other than combat, and i've made this point already in the video.
Well... I'll just come out and say it: that's not true. Try a lone Onslaught with maxed out Combat and enough points in Tech to get the nice hullmods and some +OP skills.
Even with terrible weapons, it's a beast. Added bonus: medium-large sized pirate fleets will try to pursue you, so your burn level doesn't matter that much. You can still get it to 5 with Navigation 10 and Augmented Engines, though.
The only issue is cargo capacity (and I'll agree that supplies probably take up a bit too much space relative to the capacity of combat ships), but that only limits your profits somewhat. You'll still be making credits hand over fist. I'd say that's pretty far from "utterly unworkable"! You might even have an easier time than with a frigate fleet since you don't have to chase everyone down. The one thing to watch out for is taking critical damage on your hull/armor; that'll eat a lot of supplies, but should only really happen as the result of a bad piloting mistake.
So the ship you spent several hours building up to can fight one battle vs something that can't remotely threaten it, then retreat to a base to unload spoils in order to keep profitable. Unless you are utterly married to single-ship as a concept, it simply makes more sense to bring along cargo ships to carry spoils, tugs to haul the battleship to the fight.. and frigates, to catch the foes that will inevitability flee. In return, you get a rare fun battle where the Onslught cracks a dangerous fleet, then lots of battles that are watching your chase squadrons catch staggers.
Going one ship is leaving money on the table. That isn't an awful thing, going Captian Harlock doesn't have to be a practical option.
If you ever take it into a fight where it will sustain significant damage, it's going to require rather more supply then it can carry with any safety to repair.
Not if it's the home of the government of your space-based society.
... ok, I'll stop.
If you ever take it into a fight where it will sustain significant damage, it's going to require rather more supply then it can carry with any safety to repair.
That, I think makes sense as the default state of affairs - unless you've invested heavily into the appropriate skills, perhaps.
So ships are really supposed to be able to make no significant repairs from internal resources? I see what you mean, but it is a poor choice to have ships unable to be self sufficient.
Something like an Apogee, a Venture, or an Odyssey, on the other hand, is made for more self-sufficiency. This is another axis that can be used to differentiate ships - some ships are made for joint actions, and some are made to go it alone.That is one reason why I liked those ships. They trade some combat power to do everything well. As of 0.6, the Odyssey fails at self-sufficiency. I need an Altas or several smaller dedicated freighters to haul enough supplies I get from battle to repair and recover CR for those ships. The only thing the Odyssey does is let me to use one Altas instead of two when I salvage loot from a single defense fleet battle or multiple smaller battles.
>COMBAT CONSUMES MORE SUPPLIES THAN YOU MAKENobody else seems to be getting this for running a small fleet specifically. Please specify the precise nature of the fleet, its opponents, and any other factors that may affect results.
Yes it does, if you play a certain style. If you play a huge fleet taking on equally big fleets and use that as your point then i simply won't listen to you making your point based on that until you experience the fact that small fleets actually get hit by this, and pretty hard.
I think the version of .6 I downloaded must be broken, because my main character flies around with a fleet composed entirely of high tech frigates and I accumulate probably 7 or 8 times more supplies than I use, while according to many in this thread I should be broke and drifting around the system in a bunch of CR depleted ships.
Pretty much every fleet composition I've tried has raked in absurd amounts of supplies. All fighters and carriers, a balanced mix of mid tech ships, and a fleet of low tech destroyers and cruisers with an Onslaught flagship fleet. With each of these, I can deploy the whole fleet in every engagement and still come out way ahead. My main criticism of the CR system is that it hasn't really forced me to change my playstyle at all from .54a, and if anything has made the game easier with money coming in way too fast.
What am I doing so right that so many of you aren't? My only real strategy is going after the biggest fleets I can catch and destroy without losing ships. That's it. Works every time in iron mode even.
As of 0.6, the Odyssey fails at self-sufficiency.
I think the version of .6 I downloaded must be broken, because my main character flies around with a fleet composed entirely of high tech frigates and I accumulate probably 7 or 8 times more supplies than I use, while according to many in this thread I should be broke and drifting around the system in a bunch of CR depleted ships.
Pretty much every fleet composition I've tried has raked in absurd amounts of supplies. All fighters and carriers, a balanced mix of mid tech ships, and a fleet of low tech destroyers and cruisers with an Onslaught flagship fleet. With each of these, I can deploy the whole fleet in every engagement and still come out way ahead. My main criticism of the CR system is that it hasn't really forced me to change my playstyle at all from .54a, and if anything has made the game easier with money coming in way too fast.
What am I doing so right that so many of you aren't? My only real strategy is going after the biggest fleets I can catch and destroy without losing ships. That's it. Works every time in iron mode even.
hmm...i wonder why there are no comments to my post? ???No offence, but probably because it is rather long and your English does make it hard to read.
Gets some money, but because of not perfect play style he gets more CR damage
Sorry for my english. It's not my native language. :(hmm...i wonder why there are no comments to my post? ???No offence, but probably because it is rather long and your English does make it hard to read.
Lets go over it.
O1.1: There is no tutorial yet. This is not an issue with CR.
O1.2: Are you talking about CR costing supplies or repairs costing replies? It seems your are talking about repairs because you say:Quote from: Fireball14Gets some money, but because of not perfect play style he gets more CR damage
Your play style or how good you are in battle has no influence on CR. (Unless flying a frigate and taking a long time to fight)
Furthermore, recovering CR doesn't take that much supplies. Repairs however do, but that has nothing to do with CR.
So to me it seems like 1.2 is about repairs costing too much supplies, not CR.
O2: Harry being broken has already been confirmed by Alex and is being worked on.
O3: Big ships are slow... That's not broken, that's the way it is intended to be. Speeds used to work on a gliding scale, but that made or loooooong and boring chases. The current system works better, since it's directly obvious whether you have any chance of catching that other fleet or not.
Also, big ships are supposed to be super-rare in the future and since there is nothing to defend/attack yet they don't really have a role in the current alpha campain.
Last: Supply cost. There is no economy yet, will be balanced in the future.
It's probably better to split different topics into different posts.
As for O1.2 i was talking about CR. As those who support CR have stated, that i need to use as smaller force as possible to win a battle, but if i like to play steamroller style i have no chance to supply my ships. Becos battles divided into few skirmishes rather than all out wall on wall type. So basically game supports only one play style - Swarmer fleets. Its not bad, i just think game can support more play styles, as it did in .5x version.
Instead of tinkering with the current Capital balance much, though... perhaps another type should be introduced, that can serve in that "Boss" role, is far more challenging, that cannot be captured and never gets sold? Just a thought.
Sorry for my english. It's not my native language. :(That's fine, it'll just take more posts to get your point across clearly :)
As for O1.2 i was talking about CR. As those who support CR have stated, that i need to use as smaller force as possible to win a battle, but if i like to play steamroller style i have no chance to supply my ships. Becos battles divided into few skirmishes rather than all out wall on wall type. So basically game supports only one play style - Swarmer fleets. Its not bad, i just think game can support more play styles, as it did in .5x version.
Supplying your ships has very little to do with CR.Yeh but if my big ship will get some battle damage and i don't really have a good supply of money, i most likely end up in gameover loop. :(
Most ships should also be fine in several battles in a multi-battle engagement. Of course you should make sure your ships have enough CR before starting a new engagement...
If you have a huge ship that you can not sustain - downsize.I agree, it would be smart move but totally not fun. Its not fun getting killed not in battle, but rather by game rules. :-\
Sell the ship, mothball it, scuttle it for supplies ... Tough decision but perfectly reasonable in my eyes :)
It's not fun getting killed, but it is amazing fun recovering from your own mistakes. Try it, next time.
Shun the quicksave/quickload! Embrace your inner ironman!
This is a hardcore type of games, and really don't like those... I don't know maybe thats because im really am a softcore player...
QuoteInstead of tinkering with the current Capital balance much, though... perhaps another type should be introduced, that can serve in that "Boss" role, is far more challenging, that cannot be captured and never gets sold? Just a thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>MODS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
;D
It's not fun getting killed, but it is amazing fun recovering from your own mistakes. Try it, next time.
Shun the quicksave/quickload! Embrace your inner ironman!
Yap its fun recovering from your own mistakes, but mistakes made by you when playing a game, and not because some silly game rule says i have lose a game because i won hard battle. This is exactly why most of gamers will quit playing it afterwards. One thing when you win a hard fight and yeh sure you pay recovery costs but its still a victory and totally different story when game punish you because you got your self in that fight in first place.
This is a hardcore type of games, and really don't like those... I don't know maybe thats because im really am a softcore player, but in my opinion game have to cover both types of players and they both have to have chance to win in a way they want. Right now i don't enjoy playing 0.6 like i enjoyed 0.5x. But i'ma patient man, so i'll just wait and see what happens next. ;)
I have been playing this game for a long time, and as a result I am quite good at it. Not only do I find CR to be a great mechanic that really helps to integrate the campaign map with the battle map, as well as making which ships I choose to deploy a meaningful decision, I find this version to be EASIER than previous version because I am absolutely rolling in money from all the extra supplies I am selling. Managing your fleet well is rewarded; rolling around with a deathball with no cargo capacity and flinging every ship into every battle isn't. As I see it, that is a good thing.
Edit: Ironman mode is only mode!
Also, I've read more of the thread and I have to say much of this analysis is just pointless. That isn't meant as an insult, but really, when you find yourself getting better at the game you won't have problems with CR. I just hope the availability of supplies that can be looted from enemies is toned down because otherwise I think cash will be far too abundant.
I don't know.... but game rule said if you get damaged you need to repair it..... if you suffer any battle damage you probably made some mistake...
On the other hand, if you won any battle at all, the player have all kind of advantage.... they get to pick a lot of loot, and the "stand down" option is always available if you're worry about CR cost.... the remaining part being "winning the fight". Well, that's what playing games are about isn't it?
IMO, if there's no chance of failure there's also no joy in victory.... probably the reason why I always stop playing Starsector when I started farming SDF... fortunately there's mods...
The problem with Combat Readiness is not one of difficulty.I disagree that it suffers from combat readiness unless all you're looking at is a game that uses no other systems in its campaign. This one does use other systems, they are just not created/implemented yet to get a better feel for how it'll interact with everything else. As it's been said, CR adds consequences to something that really had no consequences previously.
The problem with CR is that it adds very little fun or interesting choices while instead putting a cool down on ships that has nothing to do with anything. Of the ways to interact with it, one of them is flatly broken in the current build and the others effectively boil down to holding down the shift key while you watch a progress bar refill, or running back to a station and pressing one button. Whatever cost it involves the game still suffers from the introduction of combat readiness.
This isn't to say that CR can't work. In any development features will be added, assessed and changed or removed.
Current problems with CR:
It makes the supply economy more confusing. A fleet has a greatly varied set of possible cost. Repairing, recovering CR and constant maintenance all drain different amounts of cash and outside of a friendly station it's hard to tell how much you will need to spend before you are back to just the base drain to your wallet. It's hard to know how much Supply-bucks a fleet should keep on hand in limited storage space.
It's unclear what CR is supposed to represent. Crew exhaustion? Ammunition reloading? Ship Damage? Routine maintenance? Every ship comes across as a fragile hanger queen that goes from ready to fight to degraded effectiveness after one brief fight.
It discourages some play styles and rewards others, apparently in unintended ways. For an example, look at Harry, one of the few current ways to interact with the CR system that isn't resting at the inn (back to a friendly station) or holding down shift to wait. Harry takes combat situations that might be interesting (chasing a fleeing fleet) and reduces them to something best left to auto-resolve.
None of these are because people don't like complicating factors or feel the game is too hard. But right now, there are only a few fun choices to make when dealing with CR and it's contributing to the game being hardest at the start and very easy once established, in an inverted difficulty curve.
While I'm not crazy about the execution, the ability to use frigates that have limited peak deployment time vs frigates that have unlimited deployment time is a interesting idea. Some ships being more resistant to wear and tear and sustained combat then others, or recovering from combat faster, is also an interesting idea that I don't feel is executed very well currently.
I agree, it would be smart move but totally not fun. Its not fun getting killed not in battle, but rather by game rules.There you're touching something that's kind of core to what Alex has expressed about what he'd like the final game to feel like, and that's probably worth discussing a bit.
...
a fragile hanger queen that goes from ready to fight to degraded effectiveness after one brief fight.
...
If you have a huge ship that you can not sustain - downsize.
Sell the ship, mothball it, scuttle it for supplies ... Tough decision but perfectly reasonable in my eyes :)
In practise the result has been to skew the gameplay experience away from FUN(er)* gameplay experience. Sure StarSector is still fun, but CR is detracting from that fun by promoting lots of cheaper faster units such as frigates, carrier groups and the occasional destroyer for good measure.
Subjective as all hell, sure Starfarer campaign has thus far just been able chasing stuff, so faster is always better, that has been the case in 0.54 as well. But let's face it, heavier ships are just not gonna be good in a pursuit scenario, that's not what they're supposed to be good at
but I still want battleships to be the pinnacle achievement and reward for playing the game.
Well... I don't... I just want a nice balanced fleet, making battleships OP is gonna detriment that.
If the game is going to make them cost so damn much they’d best perform to the expectation.
They perform to my expectation... If I have a battleship in my fleet, ain't nobody is gonna get past that particular green circle in the sector... I'm not sure what you expect from them
But no, not only are battleships fairly vulnerable lumbering beasts, their endurance is nowhere near as competitive.
Excuse me? Battleships are vulnerable? In which sector? What? (Again, buggy non-deployment battles aside). Unless you're talking about how they're vulnerable to agile strikecrafts and frigates, in which case I say that sounds about right and you should bring escorts
If you’re a high technology battleship forget it, these things require a return to base after every engagement to recover the CR quickly enough.
The Paragon? She recovers from a battle in 8.75 days and is nigh unbeatable even without an escort (forlorn hope, anyone?). If you're bringing something THAT big out more often than once in 9 days, I'm pretty sure it's supposed to cost you
Fireball14 came up with 3 solutions
1) Rounded fleet speed – viable, but he doesn’t like it either
ya, me neither
2) Stationary targets – viable
the next step the game's going, I think. Stationary assets you have to defend and enemy ones you can force them to defend.
1) Get rid of tugs, this things are so emasculating. I’m a big bad battleship and I need to be tugged between battles so I can pull my big guns out? (humour intended). You’re trying to represent the additional cost of burn speed for large ships, tugs ruin the fantasy of self-powered hurtling through space.
Oh good, cuz my fantasy is having a fleet where ships have to support each other to be effective, not self powered monster ship hurtling through space
2) Alternative to tugs is to have engine mounts or augmentations that cost credits, extra fuel, extra logistics.
Could work... We already have certain hull mods that increase burn speed....
3) Allow the player to push engines beyond 100%, let a guy with big ships push the fleet faster at a cost of CR to model the engine being burned harder. This let’s a player have a tactical advantage in catching up to an enemy or fleeing to a safe area.
This I like, How about we can set the burn speed by clicking the speed gauge? Then we consume supply if we go overspeed just like if we go over cargo or crew or fuel? That sounds good...
At the moment larger and more tech oriented ships have a low Mission Capable Rate (MCR). I am not arguing that they can’t complete missions against large fleets, I’m arguing that their MCR and cost effectiveness outside of occasional defence fleet conflicts is significantly reduced compared to previous versions.
Well... Yeah... Big ships for killing big fleets, small ships for killing small fleets, that's kinda the point
This would mean that you always have the option of deploying your battleship frequently to reflect a model that they’re a robust pinnacle of engineering – not a fragile hanger queen that goes from ready to fight to degraded effectiveness after one brief fight.
But... Uh... That's what they are... It's been 205 cycles since anything has been invented... Like... At all. The Onslaught is a shambling mess of outdated metal and the Paragon is a delicate hangar queen that shines bright for homecoming, but then goes in her room and cries herself to sleep. Battleships aren't meant to participate in every other skirmish in the system, only the greatest battles where they and only they can make the difference that absolutely needs to be made
...this also has to do with the current quantity and spatial distribution of enemy fleets. To sustain a fleet of large battleships you need to be continually pounding equally large ships, however they are not as common as mid to small sized fleets.
But... Uh... That's what they are... It's been 205 cycles since anything has been invented... Like... At all. The Onslaught is a shambling mess of outdated metal and the Paragon is a delicate hangar queen that shines bright for homecoming, but then goes in her room and cries herself to sleep. Battleships aren't meant to participate in every other skirmish in the system, only the greatest battles where they and only they can make the difference that absolutely needs to be made
Which brings me back to the last point: i think cr is the wrong thing to complain aboutThat is your right. It is my right to complain about it if I think it is the right thing to complain about. I am aware CR is here to stay, but I do not think it is beyond hope to salvage. But, as it is, it is a fun killer.
As i said before, look to the future, not the pastI look to the present, because v0.6 is what we have to play. I look to the future when a new update is ready.
the current campaign doesnt work very well with crWell, that does beg the question, though, folks: should CR have been put in now, or later?
The mistake was not because of some game rule. It was using a ship in battle you could not afford to repair. You can no longer spend all your money on ships, you also have to make sure you have money in the bank to support those ships. If you have a bad run, that might mean you have to temporarily revert back to cheaper ships, or in the future campaign, make money in one of the other ways.Quote from: Fireball14Yeh but if my big ship will get some battle damage and i don't really have a good supply of money, i most likely end up in gameover loop.Yap its fun recovering from your own mistakes, but mistakes made by you when playing a game, and not because some silly game rule says i have lose a game because i won hard battle.
Likewise, I didn't read the whole thread, so these are perhaps my (umpteenth time repeated) opinions and ideas.
Right now, the system as it is seems a bit broken in terms of net gain of supplies verse expenditure of said supplies to regain CR. It's not impossible to gain surplus cash and buy more ships, but it is slightly challenging (not the good kind of challenge either).
...
Some ideas:
I do enjoy the feature of selecting priorities of repair, but I didn't notice if this was automatic or not (that is to say if the repairs and process of gaining CR was automatic).
Not automatic
If supply distribution to prioritized repairs is automatic, as well as repairs in general, I believe it should only be allowed to start manually so the supply burn doesn't kick in immediately after the fight.
Not a bad idea to have a global on/off switch for repairs, less clicks = better gameplay experience
Scuttling a ship based on hull integrity should yield higher supplies as well, and similarly I'm not sure if this is already the case.
I'm not sure either
In addition, I think a neat feature would be to have an industry base constantly churning out supplies.
Absolutely, this is a planned feature for final release, from the front page
Upcoming Features
+ Hire officers to give skill bonuses, pilot auxiliary ships, and oversee your operations
+ Explore the sector for knowledge and profit
+ Trade goods, run mining operations, build industries — and defend your interests
+ Become involved in factional politics
As a side bar, I think CR readiness should be determined by more than just a generic "supplies".
This has been suggested to the Alex, however focus is being maintained on a simplified stamina system. This is not to say you're suggestion is wrong but on a project with limited budget there isn't going to be a drawn out development and testing of every single variation of how to implement CR, and at the moment it would seem that the current mechanic is satisfying the base requirements for Alex (that's my impression but I can't speak for Alex)
I'm sure I have more thoughts on the supply mechanic, but I'm at work right now, so I should probably do that.
Not really, Star Sector is a way of life, seriously stop doing that silly 'work' thing and some some real 'work' in Corvus defeating pirates :D
@Eternity57
Thank you for the feedback for 0.6, your experience is not that uncommon and the negative effects of CR and supply usage have been commented and debated upon...a lot.
I can make some generalisations about your fleet size and composition needing to be modified depending on who you're attacking, but in the mean time do you have at least 2 Atlas carriers? For a 100 point fleet I often have 2 Atlas just for carrying supplies (with 4-6 tugs). Depending on the hunting grounds I will modify how much supplies I carry with me.
The other thing is who you're hunting, if you hunt the Hedgemony defence fleet, Hedgmony supply fleet, Independent Traders etc. Whoever is the biggest you'll get some big supply loots.
When not taking on capital ships aim for smaller ships with less supply usage. Large waves of fighters and bombers are cheap...er, use less CR and you don't have to 'really' pay for hull repair.
If you upload your savegame, or maybe post a screenshot of your fleet composition others might be able to help you as well. I can't really tell you how to play because how I play is not the same way you play or even want to play.
I'm not trying to dismiss your assertions, as there are some genuine balance issues with 0.6 which are caused by a myriad of reasons, but check out the 0.6 tips thread which may help you get the most out of this release.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6713.0 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6713.0)
Most of maintenance and operating cost is salaries, something the game makes no effort to cover, unless supplies are also payroll (given they are abstracted to cover everything else we may as well say they are.)
Perhaps elite crew also ought to consume 6 times as many supplies per day as regular crew?No! That would make them almost as much a liability as marines, since supply consumption is tied to logistics. Powering up my crew should not make my fleet weaker by reducing the number of ships I can use within my Logistics rating.
Agreed. I don't see any solid gameplay reason Elites should "eat" more than greens.QuotePerhaps elite crew also ought to consume 6 times as many supplies per day as regular crew?No! That would make them almost as much a liability as marines, since supply consumption is tied to logistics. Powering up my crew should not make my fleet weaker by reducing the number of ships I can use within my Logistics rating.
-SNIP_
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6713.0 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6713.0)
Thank you Debido
Here my fleet :
(http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/703/22ui.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/22ui.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I just realized that I do not know what is a Tug !?
+1 this is a gameplay killer. If you think CR isn't fun, then paying Elite princesses and needed to dump them off when they cost too much is a real downer. Why not just put explosive collars on them like in SPAZ? That would be much cheaper than paying them.Agreed. I don't see any solid gameplay reason Elites should "eat" more than greens.QuotePerhaps elite crew also ought to consume 6 times as many supplies per day as regular crew?No! That would make them almost as much a liability as marines, since supply consumption is tied to logistics. Powering up my crew should not make my fleet weaker by reducing the number of ships I can use within my Logistics rating.
disclaimer: I only got to page 9 before tl:dr-ing this thread, so it's possible that my opinion has already been stated.
I like Combat Readiness. I grew up watching Star Trek, and the CR system seems to hold true to the space battles I used to watch on the telly. How I see it is, at the start of the battle at full CR, the red alert sounds and all hands are on deck. Then during the battle, the ship is taking hits.
Now how Star Trek did it, even if it was only the shields that were hit, you'd have computer panels exploding throwing redshirts here, there and everywhere. This is what I imagine is happening when CR decreases.
As to why ships can't do battles in a row, think about it. You've just come out of a battle, and you've got broken panels and wounded redshirts all over the bridge. You've got to spend some time fixing them (chewing through your supplies), and getting some hyposprays into your redshirts. This takes time, hence the long CR recharge.
Just because your post-battle stats say you didn't lose any guys, doesn't mean they aren't wounded. Likewise, your hull may not be damaged, but exploded panels aren't part of the hull.
And this is why I like CR. It makes me think of the space combats as more 'real'. Consequences, and such-like.
- No Tugs :D so you're going to be traveling VERY slowly, check this linkhttp://starsector.wikia.com/wiki/Ox (http://starsector.wikia.com/wiki/Ox) for more information
- You have a construction rig, these things have a slow burn, consume a ton of supplies and aren't quite necessary.
or maybe it just needs a small fast freighter with appropriately smaller cargo space and supply cost.You mean a Hound?
That is, multiple Hounds are not as efficient as bigger ships.Well... good. Because otherwise there'd be no point in using the larger ships, and that'd be just wrong.
You mean a Hound?
If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
Hookers.
If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
Hookers.
This is not the place to discuss or post sexually oriented material. Please take it elsewhere.
Okay so, essentially, what you are saying is that the crew-exhaustion part of combat readiness will NOT be recovered by the station in future versions unless you decide to stay x-amount of time?If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
Alex's stance right now is that there isn't any particular value on your time in-game that would make you unwilling to stand around for a few days to recover your CR and frankly not much to do but bash pirates over the head, you get an option to skip some pointless waiting and get back to playing.
The implication seems to have been that "Push button, instant CR recover" may not be a mechanic in the final game, and is a temporary measure to make the current alpha more playable while time isn't a resource.
The problem i have with combat readiness is that you can't even run away anymore with 0%, because your crew has forgotten how to turn on shields, use the engines basically everything but turning your turrets without firing, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, i understand having problem and malfunctions but locking down the whole ship because what, your crew suddenly died or forgot how to use even the most basic systems... it's not fun to get taken out by a pirate fleet that you could have easily run away from with basic controls. I'm not even talking about fighting here. It does not make sense in the form it is now, there is a difference between your crew being exhausted and your crew being dead and suicidal because of low cr.
ok yeah that I kinda agree with... I understand we should have SEVERE debuffs for %0 CR, but do we have to make it non deployable whatsoever?
Can't we just let them deploy at such a deteriorated state that they basically can't fight worth a damn instead?
Why would you want to risk your ship by deploying it in such a state anyway?
I thought non-combat ready ships were unable to do a god-damned thing? Shields offline, weapons offline, ship systems inactive, engines barely functional.
Why would you want to risk your ship by deploying it in such a state anyway?
Sometimes it's a decision between risking a ship or risking the fleet. There are situations where using a 0%CR ship would make sense and might even be a lot of fun (if you like desperate efforts and heroic last stands). Imagine a battered cruiser slugging behind at the rear of a escaping fleet, suddenly turning around and letting his guns bellow for the last time, sacrificing himself to allow his comrades to flee.
Or, less dramatically said, an order like "last stand" could force a not combat ready ship back into action, but at the cost of its inevitable permanent destruction (or maybe massive damage/constantly degrading hull would be enough with the repair costs high as they are).
As a side effect that would emphasize how severe of a problem low CR really is, your ship is literally falling apart.
As a side effect that would emphasize how severe of a problem low CR really is, your ship is literally falling apart.
I thought non-combat ready ships were unable to do a god-damned thing? Shields offline, weapons offline, ship systems inactive, engines barely functional.Well, if it's a carrier, it's still able to replace fighters no matter how badly it is damaged.
Well, something's brewing in the dev kitchen with regards to this, so let's just wait and see...
Maybe also tie in OP? A weapon that has high OP has a greater chance of malfunctioning than a basic vulcan cannon.Ewww, no! If I spend more OP, a relatively scarce resource, to use better weapons, and spend AP/SP in Technology to get more OP, I should get what I pay for, not punished by cutting-edge weapons breaking.
I don't know... I sort of feel like low tech ships would have fewer malfunctions overall, but lose CR more readily when fielded and in combat. On the other hand, I think high tech ships should take more supplies to get combat ready, but are more efficient once they're ready: they should use less CR to deploy and have a lesser rate of CR degradation?QuoteMaybe also tie in OP? A weapon that has high OP has a greater chance of malfunctioning than a basic vulcan cannon.Ewww, no! If I spend more OP, a relatively scarce resource, to use better weapons, and spend AP/SP in Technology to get more OP, I should get what I pay for, not punished by cutting-edge weapons breaking.
I am also in the camp that thinks CR would be improved by a degradation of performance rather than straight up disability. If you have high CR, your weapons do more damage and your ship moves faster, your system abilities recharge more quickly, your shields are more efficient and raise quickly, and your armour better at reducing damage. If your CR is low, your systems are overstressed. Your weapons have their damaged reduced, repair more slowly when broken, your engines crap out in a stiff breeze, your armour is loosened by constant stress, your flux overcharge bonuses are lower, EVERYTHING should suck more. If you have none, firing your weapons breaks them half the time, your systems repair so slowly you are easily made helpless, your ship abilities are crummy, your shields raise slowly, etc. If it is a combat variable, it should rise or reduce according to CR.
I know combat performance is already affected, I'm saying it would be good for CR to affect all the variables, like shield speed and upkeep, flux costs of weapon fire, etc.That seems like a bit much to me.
Okay so, essentially, what you are saying is that the crew-exhaustion part of combat readiness will NOT be recovered by the station in future versions unless you decide to stay x-amount of time?If CR also goes down based on how tired the crew is due to constant fighting, how does that jive with having CR completely restored at a friendly station? Do you end up taking the crew out drinking? Or does the date automatically advance however many days are enough to get them all willing to jump back into battle? I haven't figured that out, yet.
Alex's stance right now is that there isn't any particular value on your time in-game that would make you unwilling to stand around for a few days to recover your CR and frankly not much to do but bash pirates over the head, you get an option to skip some pointless waiting and get back to playing.
The implication seems to have been that "Push button, instant CR recover" may not be a mechanic in the final game, and is a temporary measure to make the current alpha more playable while time isn't a resource.
That's already a thing, except that if you have really low CR (<10% I think) your ship isn't ready for combat and can't be deployed.
That seems like a bit much to me.
That's already a thing, except that if you have really low CR (<10% I think) your ship isn't ready for combat and can't be deployed.
Problem is, a ship is never unable to be deployed. Deploying constitutes simply pointing the ship in the general direction and firing the engines (which every ship has active, btw)
I don't mind if they can only squeeze a shot off once every OTHER minute, and their shields flicker in and out of existence, just let us point her in the right direction, and fire the engine.
inb4 that'll be useless anyway: That's for the player (or the AI) to decide. If I want a barely functioning ship on the field because we absolutely need every gun that we can get on the enemy, I don't think we should be denied that option
inb4 that'll be useless anyway: That's for the player (or the AI) to decide. If I want a barely functioning ship on the field because we absolutely need every gun that we can get on the enemy, I don't think we should be denied that option
I thought non-combat ready ships were unable to do a god-damned thing?They are, hence my confusion.
[Correct me if I am wrong, but i thought ships that are deployed (in an escape scenario) at that low amount of CR can't fire anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong, but i thought ships that are deployed (in an escape scenario) at that low amount of CR can't fire anyway. A ship in that condition is nothing more than a glorified asteroid, and is more useful 99% of the time waiting and fighting another day.
That's already a thing, except that if you have really low CR (<10% I think) your ship isn't ready for combat and can't be deployed.
Problem is, a ship is never unable to be deployed. Deploying constitutes simply pointing the ship in the general direction and firing the engines (which every ship has active, btw)
I don't mind if they can only squeeze a shot off once every OTHER minute, and their shields flicker in and out of existence, just let us point her in the right direction, and fire the engine.
inb4 that'll be useless anyway: That's for the player (or the AI) to decide. If I want a barely functioning ship on the field because we absolutely need every gun that we can get on the enemy, I don't think we should be denied that option
Once you're in a situation bad enough you're allowed to deploy your useless ships - when you're down to non combat worthy and being pursued. Run away more if you want to fight with useless ships I guess.
Correct me if I am wrong, but i thought ships that are deployed (in an escape scenario) at that low amount of CR can't fire anyway. A ship in that condition is nothing more than a glorified asteroid, and is more useful 99% of the time waiting and fighting another day.
What gothars said, I think they should be able to fight, however to a very small extent.
Even if they can't fire weapons, though, in that 1 percent of the time where I think it's worthwhile to deploy that glorified asteroid, I want to be able to deploy that glorified asteroid.
Combatreadyness adds bit too much microamage work that needs to be done after every Battle..
I feel like the game was better before where as long as you had supplies the ship keept running
it makes early game realy tedious that you need to hang around abase
... and one can assume spaceships are more Advanced than Aircraft.. and combat readyness of a Aircraft doesnt og Down, unless the pilot fights over like 16 hours.. if a fight ever lasts that long.. and even then, the fuel is more likely to run out before a malifunction on the system or the pilot.On the contrary, modern fighter jets require an extensive maintenance overhaul very regularly. Similar to how F1 racers go through up to 8 engines in a season, they swap engines ever 2 to 3 races. Pushing systems to the max like the crew has to do during combat means those systems require extensive maintenance afterwards.
Supplies should not cost so much. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to fully repair a ship, yet too profitable if much more can be obtained then needed. Supplies need to be cheaper. Bigger ships eat too many supplies to recover CR. Ships seem to eat more supplies than before, and freighters are almost required to pick up enough salvage to profit. Problems with CR and supplies are linked.
Deploying high tech ships costs too much CR, unless the ship is the flagship with max Combat (for -30% CR cost).
Deploying high tech ships costs too much CR, unless the ship is the flagship with max Combat (for -30% CR cost).
Supplies should not cost so much. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to fully repair a ship, yet too profitable if much more can be obtained then needed. Supplies need to be cheaper. Bigger ships eat too many supplies to recover CR.
No they don't, if you reduce their CR usage, then what is the point of low tech?Kiting other ships with more and superior ballistics. High-tech ships could take more CR than low-tech; I just think they eat too much. Some other poster called high CR gobblers "hangar queens" or something.
because high tech is supposed to be better in every category, they need that penalty for being better.They tend to have better shields and speed, and better one-shot weapons like blasters and plasma cannons. Most have terrible range and must expose themselves to enemy fire to kill other ships.
I've seen this sentiment come up a few times (though it might have been you all those times, Megas - not quite sure), so I just want to explain the rationale. If CR loss is to have a high material cost (beyond just the opportunity cost of not being as ready for a little while), then whatever is consumed to regain CR must cost a lot. And since a large part of the idea of CR is to promote more thoughtful deployment and reward the player that fights riskier battles, it's necessary for CR loss to have a high material cost. Drastically lowering supply costs would largely amount to removing the mechanic.Some problems: If many supplies are needed to keep ships up and running, then the Atlas or several high-capacity cargo ships are required to collect all of the salvage from battle. (Standing down may not always be an option if fleet fought too hard or lets surviving chunks of XP and loot get away.) Given the current price of supplies, looting as much as possible is very lucrative, and makes the salvage option the no-brainer choice most of the time. Also, if a player wants max Combat and Technology (and takes just enough Leadership to pilot a battleship without losing LR), he does not have much of a choice what to deploy, especially if player wants to pilot a single super ship, like Vindicator from Star Control 2.
If CR loss is to have a high material cost (beyond just the opportunity cost of not being as ready for a little while), then whatever is consumed to regain CR must cost a lot. And since a large part of the idea of CR is to promote more thoughtful deployment and reward the player that fights riskier battles, it's necessary for CR loss to have a high material cost. Drastically lowering supply costs would largely amount to removing the mechanic.
let the player buy supplies without crippling himself.
I'd be happy if supplies would sell for much less.
Supplies should not cost so much. Too expensive to buy, too expensive to fully repair a ship, yet too profitable if much more can be obtained then needed. Supplies need to be cheaper. Bigger ships eat too many supplies to recover CR. Ships seem to eat more supplies than before, and freighters are almost required to pick up enough salvage to profit. Problems with CR and supplies are linked.
Deploying high tech ships costs too much CR, unless the ship is the flagship with max Combat (for -30% CR cost).
The whole point is that you need a freighter to haul away the loot if you wanna make a profit. That's what freighters are for. That's not a symptom of the CR/Supply system not working, it's an indicator that it is working perfectly.Not if I am overflowing with loot after a routine fight against a greater-than-or-equal strength fleet. All that does is make me stop what I do, pick up loot, run back to base, then go back to whatever my original mission was. I do not get overflowing loot after a single fight in other games. Freighters should be useful for long voyages or for efficient trading runs, not an LR tax to pick up all loot from one or two fights. As for all of that loot, about a fourth or third of it gets consumed for repairs and CR recovery. The rest gets sold for easy money.
Ditto for high tech ships costing a lot of CR - that's the whole point. The are stronger than equivalent mid-tech shipsNot always. They have different strengths.
For example, the only thing keeping the Tempest even remotely in check is it's crazy high CR loss per deployment - but for that one battle you use it it's a force multiplier like nothing else in space, able to take out entire fleets. That kind of power comes at a cost, and that cost is literal, you know, cost.No frigate has that kind of power anymore, thanks to the CR decay in battle (or ammo limits in case of Lasher and Brawler). Tempests also cost so much money (slightly less than Hyperion) that three Lashers or Wolves are a better deal for all-around grunt work.
No frigate has that kind of power anymore, thanks to the CR decay in battle (or ammo limits in case of Lasher and Brawler). Tempests also cost so much money (slightly less than Hyperion) that three Lashers or Wolves are a better deal for all-around grunt work.
The annoying thing is how much CR disempowers the player, because it is seriously not fun to be stuck in a full-health Aurora with 9% CR trying to run away from a single crippled hound with controls locked and watching helplessly from the sidelines because apparently it's better to get shot to pieces rather than fight a single frigate who I'd eat for breakfast if I just had one percent more CR. The worst part is that there is nothing I can do to skip the murder of my shiny cruiser because there is no way in hell I can make it to the edge of the map before dying or taking massive damage... and feeling helpless is something that should not happen without some deus ex machine in a game.:P should have had a reserve force of:
Err... I have to disagree with you there! The Tempest is miles ahead of everything but the Hyperion. A Lasher might take down an ill equipped cruiser with short range weapons if it had a maxed out tech and combat tree. A Tempest will take down the entire SDF with those bonuses. The drone distracting enemies is a massive massive advantage! It does a better job imo than a standard frigate escort, and they scale together perfectly. For a few tasks I'd rather have an Afflictor - taking out an Onslaught or Dominator is easier in an Afflictor - but for everything else the Tempest just wins.The Tempest is good, excellent in a certain role, but in all-around fighting, it is equal or slightly better than other good attack frigate types. As a grunt controlled by the AI in a frigate swarm, the Tempest does not perform much better than other top frigates. They are just as prone to stupidity as other ships, and, in my experience, tend to die about as much as the other good attack frigate types. It is miles ahead of other frigates in one thing, the cost to buy one. At least it does not need rare weapons (like needlers) to be effective.
feeling helpless is something that should not happen without some deus ex machine in a game.
CR is a binary, unintuitive mechanic that forces the player to never deploy their strongest, most high tech ships lest they get caught with their pants down before the CR regenerates.
The problem with that is it creates "hanger queens" that almost never see combat and are almost better not being purchased or used at all due to the "scare factor" and supply costs they add to your fleetQuoteCR is a binary, unintuitive mechanic that forces the player to never deploy their strongest, most high tech ships lest they get caught with their pants down before the CR regenerates.Yep, you're not supposed to deploy your best ships unless absolutely necessarily, that's the point of CR, working as intended I believe. Or you can do what dmaiski said and deploy your best ships as a main force, with a smaller less fancy squadron as a reserve, that's not too hard to manage
The problem with that is it creates "hanger queens" that almost never see combat and are almost better not being purchased or used at all due to the "scare factor" and supply costs they add to your fleetQuoteCR is a binary, unintuitive mechanic that forces the player to never deploy their strongest, most high tech ships lest they get caught with their pants down before the CR regenerates.Yep, you're not supposed to deploy your best ships unless absolutely necessarily, that's the point of CR, working as intended I believe. Or you can do what dmaiski said and deploy your best ships as a main force, with a smaller less fancy squadron as a reserve, that's not too hard to manage
..."hanger queens"
previous post
The problem is that CR doesn't make waiting FUN it's just the Starfarer equivalent of a loading screen only it consumes resources.That's because there's nothing to do in the waiting time... YET.
Honestly ships need to lose less CR if the battles are short and the ships aren't heavily damaged or depleted on ammo.
It could be broken down like so.
50% of the ships 'Deployment Cost' is calculated based on how long the battle went, after 10~15 minutes it hits that full 50% value.
25% of the deployment cost is calculated based on how much ammo remains in a ship, note that ships that do not have ammo based weapons count as 0/0 which is still 100%.
25% of the deployment cost is based on if the ship took hull damage in the battle or not. If it did it's the full 25%, if not it's 0%.
So for a 40% deployment cost on a Medusa 20% would be time based, 10% would be ammo based, and the last 10% is hull condition. If you do battles effectively you can lose very little CR.
Honestly ships need to lose less CR if the battles are short and the ships aren't heavily damaged or depleted on ammo.
It could be broken down like so.
50% of the ships 'Deployment Cost' is calculated based on how long the battle went, after 10~15 minutes it hits that full 50% value.
25% of the deployment cost is calculated based on how much ammo remains in a ship, note that ships that do not have ammo based weapons count as 0/0 which is still 100%.
25% of the deployment cost is based on if the ship took hull damage in the battle or not. If it did it's the full 25%, if not it's 0%.
So for a 40% deployment cost on a Medusa 20% would be time based, 10% would be ammo based, and the last 10% is hull condition. If you do battles effectively you can lose very little CR.
Well the idea behind the 'stand down' option is to recover CR if the battle was easy. The problem is that the option seems to never be available after an easy battle.It also lets survivors you want to kill escape cleanly.
QuoteWell the idea behind the 'stand down' option is to recover CR if the battle was easy. The problem is that the option seems to never be available after an easy battle.It also lets survivors you want to kill escape cleanly.
Well the idea behind the 'stand down' option is to recover CR if the battle was easy. The problem is that the option seems to never be available after an easy battle :DActually, no; the idea behind the stand down option is to prevent a fleet of frigates from gaming the CR system against, say, a Paragon. If you took the option out, someone with a pile of hounds could attack a Paragon, retreat, and repeat until the Paragon ran out of CR and died an ignominious death.
Wll sorry to say this but I just got caught by 6 fleets. They were all small and caught and fought me 1 at a time. I beat 5 but by the time I hit 6 my frigs were done. They just swarm you with disposable enemies that you can no longer deal with because CR is broken. Could have beaten the 6 and went about me day but dont worry....CR IS HERE TO RUIN THE GAME....as intended
overcoming them is part of gameplay. Sometimes its very hard.
Honestly, ships need to use METAL for repairs, not just general "supplies".
You can't plug a man-sized hole in your armor with space clothing, food rations, toothpase, spare screws and tools and similar.
Honestly, ships need to use METAL for repairs, not just general "supplies".
You can't plug a man-sized hole in your armor with space clothing, food rations, toothpase, spare screws and tools and similar.
Just rationalise it as supplies including hull patching material, space welding equipment, and lots of expanding spacebuilders foam.
All this would do is either force the player to carry metals around with them (or always have enough free space to salvage them) - essentially a cargo space tax. Or induce the player into conducting micromanagement with floating cargo pods in order to repair damaged ships, while staying in one place to recover the items you dropped to make room for metals.
More complexity isn't always more good and some things are obfusicated for a reason. 'Realism' is not always a good thing to include in a game because it can get in the way of gameplay and turn things into chores.
If you're looking for something meaningful to do with metal, have a think about the player either reconditioning abandoned habitats etc, and/or building thier own.
This might need it's own thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14712.0)...
The biggest thing I don't like is that enemy ships seem to cheat it.