Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Suggestions / ships with burn drive should use it liberally when under direct retreat order

« on: August 28, 2019, 05:30:07 AM »

this is my biggest pet peeve as of now as it makes tarsus a otherwise good and speedy cargo hauler a poor choice since it doesn't use it when there's ships nearby. i understand that on some circumstances it could be risky to burn drive straight forward as you could burn drive into enemy ships but that should really be up to the player to decide if it ought to burn drive straight ahead (direct retreat) or be cautious (normal retreat).

there's also the thing that the reason direct order became a thing was iirc precisely because of ships that have forward movement abilities
so if those ships won't use those abilities properly when given the direct order then direct order is essentially useless imo

2

General Discussion / ships with burn drive still too cautious when given direct retreat order

« on: August 26, 2019, 03:48:36 PM »

so is it just me or even after giving direct retreat order to ships with burn drive they still tend to be careful (more than necessary id say) in using it like they won't burn drive away from enemies if the enemy is close to them or if a friendly is close to them

you can test this in the missions "dire straits" with the tarsuses and in "predator or prey?" with the dominator. even when i stay close to the dominator and not directly in front of it it does not seem to burn drive away presumably because of potential for collusion? if this is the intended effect then i would suggest they should always burn drive when under the order of direct retreat because i believe normal retreat should be reserved for when you want the ship to be careful in retreating and direct order for when you want it to retreat as fast as possible

3

Mods / Re: [0.9.1a] Weapons Group Controls 1.1.0

« on: August 21, 2019, 06:37:20 AM »

is it possible to map a hotkey to mouse buttons? i been looking into the link provided in the TOGGLE_WEAPONS_HOTKEYS.ini and it seems number 2 uses for both the keyboard 1 key and mouse middle click which is what im aiming for as i want to bind hold fire to middle click so im not sure how i could bind mouse buttons to it or if its possible

4

Suggestions / Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.

« on: April 30, 2018, 02:38:33 AM »

so if ui is fine as is then just make it unusable on dedicated carriers then? that's pretty much the only other unbalanced thing with it

5

Suggestions / Re: Separate combat and campaign skill points

« on: April 22, 2018, 08:52:10 AM »

So rather than separating the trees, I could see the combat one entirely removed from the player, but the player could then share the bridge of the flagship with an officer and get the benefits from their combat skills.

That was pretty my original suggestion but Alex said it's also an important element to make player "feel they are growing stronger".

That's an intriging idea. Although I can see it conflicting a lot with Officers.

Since SS is java game it should be OO programming so making a officer.player class shouldn't be a huge issue, at least theoretically.

in that case, making combat having its own skill points separated from other skill tress can work then? honestly though im starting to feel its nigh-impossible to strike a balance between fleet wide skills and player piloted skills.
ideally both player piloted and fleet wide should be viable in their own ways but make player piloted skills good enough to pick over fleet wide then they can encourage to solo fleets like in 7.2 (and if the pilot skill is not good enough for taking on fleets then why bother with single ship skill over fleet wide?)

and then there's the electronic warfare and coordinated maneuvers in this mix too

6

Suggestions / Re: Odyssey's piloting

« on: March 28, 2018, 03:02:43 AM »

1+ to Odyssey's missile mounts changed to synergy (or maybe just the front 2 missile mount only). honestly if odyssey is supposed to fire all three of the main large mounts at a single location then what's the point of the broadside design it has? and according to TJJ the ai doesn't utilize the sweetspot either

7

Suggestions / Re: Beam Stuff

« on: March 27, 2018, 08:59:12 AM »

if the general sentiment is that the odyssey is poor for its supply cost, then what would be the correct supply cost if we are to reduce it without changing any in-combat stats of odyssey? 35? or something around 38?

The problem with that is that it would make it cheaper than the Onslaught, which is a low tech ship AND the Conquest, both of which are 40 DP.

I think we need to look at combined supply and fuel costs (I think I spend comparable amount if not more on fuel in my playthroughs...). Onslaught is 40/15, Paragon 50/10, Odyssey 45/10, Conquest 40/10.
Is Odyssey superior to Conquest in it's combat performance? Maybe for some specific situations under player control, but generally not.

yeah my original question was pretty much "what is odyssey's "net worth" in its current state?" and so if odyssey is weaker than onslaught and conquest then it should cost less. (ofc im not saying to just nerf it in that case and leave it as is)

8

Suggestions / Re: Beam Stuff

« on: March 27, 2018, 02:58:03 AM »

if the general sentiment is that the odyssey is poor for its supply cost, then what would be the correct supply cost if we are to reduce it without changing any in-combat stats of odyssey? 35? or something around 38?

9

General Discussion / Re: 345 days - you've read this post before

« on: March 05, 2018, 01:23:08 AM »

Also: I wouldn't equate infrequent updates with a lack of progress - it's exactly the opposite; more frequent releases would slow the overall pace of development down - due to the large amount of extra effort associated with making a release - even though it would probably *feel* like it was moving more quickly.

and that's not all, it would also make mods incompatible and will require modders to update their mod everytime a new version happens 

10

Suggestions / Re: suggestion: soft cease-fire key - stops firing all non-point defense weapons

« on: March 02, 2018, 11:32:52 AM »

(Moved to suggestions.)

I could definitely see this being nice, but I'm also hesitant to add more controls. Every button around WASD is already taken up by something, and I'm not a fan of either cycling through 3 states or different behavior on holding a button vs tapping it, at least for these sort of "action" controls. For example, if you're holding X, it's going to be tough to maneuver at the same time, and chances are you really want to be maneuvering if your flux situation is such that you shut down everything but PD.

Almost wondering if a per-group setting to ignore "hold fire" status might be an alternative approach... hm.

well i was aware that most of the keys around wasd are taken but i thought it won't nearly be a issue. (i think i would be okay with normal hold fire being on g and soft on x as ill probably use soft over normal hold fire most of the time, although things can be different to others however) but i can see where you are coming from with starsector's "one bad maneuver and take heavy damage" ish combat. assigning weapon groups to ignore hold fire might work better

This really seems like overcomplicating things, as Alex said we already have a bunch of different controls (feels like playing a piano sometimes). And even though this seems neat in theory, I don't see why you can't just disable autofire on other weapons. You have all pd weapons in one control group, weapons you want pretty much always to be firing in another (or two maybe) and then the rest is missiles or big guns which are flux intensive. So even with a capital ship it takes like one second to do what you're proposing to be a key on its own.

its not just a case of turning off autofire while you cool down, its also juggling around and deciding when to shoot and when not to. like say i disabled flux intensive weapon group but flux is not going down quick enough so i disabled other non flux intensive weapon groups (but not pd) but then saw a enemy come in close and damaged enough that i can safely finish it off if all weapons are firing at it so i turned on all weapons as fast as i can and while the enemy died it would be quicker if all weapons immediately fired at it, and then you have to turn off weapons again to cool down. so overall things would be less exhaustive and more efficient if there was a separate hold fire key that didn't stop pd fire (or assigning pd group to ignore original hold fire key)

11

Suggestions / suggestion: soft cease-fire key - stops firing all non-point defense weapons

« on: March 02, 2018, 01:53:01 AM »

pretty much the title - similar to normal cease fire key except this one will only stop weapons that do not have the role of PD or anything similar, so when you want the autofiring weapons to stop firing when at high flux but not stop PD due to ai firing missiles at you at high flux (rightfully so) you can just press this key instead of manually turning off all non pd weapons on autofire

edit: what the heck? i was certain i posted this in suggestions subforum
edit 2: got moved to suggestions now

12

Suggestions / Re: "Hold fire" button for fighters and bombers.

« on: November 19, 2017, 05:30:44 AM »

how about...regroup always acts as a "do not attack" and engage mode makes fighters deliberately attack/escort only when a target is selected and when not selected anything acts as "defend ship"? the "regroup" and "engage" could be renamed accordingly.

13

Suggestions / Re: Fixing Markets - an Idea

« on: April 26, 2017, 09:07:14 AM »

1+ to this suggestion. however wouldn't this make ship components a trade commodity as well? (buy cheaper weapons at smaller market and sell to big etc) or would this be just buy price only.

14

Suggestions / Re: S-burn balance....

« on: April 25, 2017, 09:39:43 AM »

-snip-

personally imo what darloth suggested feels like the best idea - simple yet effective. just keep the 20 burn cap. (it also gives a little "no friction in space" feel with it which is nice)

15

General Discussion / Re: how to use fleet command effectively?

« on: September 08, 2016, 02:19:19 AM »

Your fleet should be made up of 4 types of ships:
1) Player ships (scalpel - or hammer - depending on your playstyle) (fast, deadly, and capable of turning a single opponent opening into a gravestone)
2) Decoys (normally frigates - or destroyers late game) (very very very fast with massive range and absolutely no punching power) (good for point capping and scouting and chasing retreating opponents)
3) Line ships (Anvil) (relatively slow but huge shields and a semi good punch ...... range is not that important)
4) Support (Missile Boats, Carriers, etc)

ordering a line ship to escort a support ship ... ok (but a bit of a waste)
ordering a decoy to escort any ship at all ...... erm not a good idea
ordering a support to escort a support ........ depends on speed so they stay together

ordering a line ship to escort a line ship ........ ridiculously effective
(2 scorpions, 2 legionaries, 2 centurions, 2 dominators, etc) they live more than 4x longer than if they fight solo normally

can you give me a few example ships for the types you mentioned? (except support)
and

There are four types of ships in my fleet (thanks to 25 ship limit):  playerships, superfreighters (to scoop up loot from multiple endgame fleets), tugs (to make superfreighters as fast as a battleship), and spoils (i.e., boarded ships).  If I could have 40 ships in my fleet, I might consider matching numbers with the AI, but since I cannot, solo or chain-flagships for nearly all fights for the entire game.

(might be a bit off-topic but) why did you mentioned 40 ships specifically? i heard something about ai having 40 fleet size but not sure - is it true? (just want to confirm)