Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Turbulator

Pages: [1] 2
1
Suggestions / Overworld key remapping
« on: February 16, 2022, 06:12:12 PM »
A public apology to Alex and the team.

Having lurked and followed development for what must have been a decade and owing to my lack of experience interacting with people, I completely overestimated my position, taking everyone for granted and forgetting we don't know each other. I may be a nitpicker and I may be an idiot but I'm not a coward. I am in the wrong and I'd like to make things right, if I can.

I am sorry for my disrespectful behaviour and for the ensuing awkwardness thereafter. I love this game and I'd love to help but I can not and will not continue if it would cause any more friction.

If it is to be, thanks, good luck and cheers!

2
I had the impression 'slow moving' gave immunity to hyperstorm damage regardless. If this is not a bug can a warning be added to the 'Emergency burn' tool tip?

3
Suggestions / Repurposing onboard spaces
« on: February 13, 2022, 11:07:25 AM »
Temporary alternate hold storage
Spoiler
Under certain conditions you may find yourself lacking space for that extra bit of fuel, crew or cargo but rarely all at once. I was thinking it would be great if we could still make use of that free space with some restrictions.

-Rules
--Fuel tanks I imagined were designed only for fuel when thinking of the Dram, Phaeton and Prometheus, so the idea of jamming anything else in felt wrong. Yet from the illustration before an orbital bombardment, they do not appear bespoke seeming made up of those cannisters just hanging out there in space. Since I'm unsure, for now to keep things simple I say we shouldn't be allowed to.

--Cargo holds however I feel should be able to take anything!

--But crew compartments... unless in game lore allows fuel to be stored safely in much smaller and easier to man handle, free standing, gas cannisters, I think only cargo.

A solution
Since we are placing things that ideally shouldn't be there, a conversion rate 'm' could be set for any hold with free capacity whereby anything that would normally take up 'n' units of space in its normal hold would now take 'm * n' units of space in the alternate hold.

This conversion rate 'm' could be considered the requirements to store it there safely.

I think m = 4 is fair, so if your fuel tanks were full but you still wanted to store 100 extra fuel, you would need at least 400 extra space in the cargo hold to do so.

I think at this point there are two ways to go about how things should be considered when stored in alternate holds.

Either it is free to place there beside the space inefficiency, allowing you to burn that fuel first before consuming from the main tank

or

A small one off supply toll every time things are pushed into and out of that alternate space that represents the effort/planning/rearranging required to store it all there when away from port. This should work out much cheaper than carrying it all or placing it in a stable orbit since it won't constantly drain your supplies and there would hopefully be no need for another trip.

Personally don't like the idea of any toll but in this scenario I think it makes sense since it shouldn't be possible to burn fuel stored in the cargo hold. And being allowed to push it back to the tanks for free once there's space makes having the player push it redundant. So when in hyperspace and you're burning through your main fuel reserves, you won't pull from the alternate hold; you must move it to the fuel tanks first to get that top up with another toll. That being said the labour costs of salvaging alone are never registered so maybe it shouldn't exist either.

Whatever the case, once all free space is allocated, any more overflow would increase supply consumption like normal; but with this one simple trick we can finally take away that last bit of food we keep leaving behind; derelict stations love this!

Simple, but not that interesting. However, if 4 units of space are required to store things safely... it begs the question, what if we... *slowly looks directly at reader* didn't?
Spoiler
A more complex solution
By relaxing the restrictions we can make something far more flexible and remove the toll in favour of things more devious dynamic.

As before any overflow defaults to be storable at 4 units of space per unit until no more usable space. Then as more overflow comes in, 3 units of space per unit is used, leading to a situation with some taking up 4 and some 3. With more overflow, eventually all fits in with 3 units. Then 3 becomes 2 and then finally 1.

This is how it would work on the surface but it comes with caveats being, the more you cram into that free space, the greater the penalties and risks become. Some I'd like to see:

-Gradual lowering of maximum combat readiness
-Extra CR loss per battle
-Gradual lowering of CR recovery rate
-Gradual lowering of combat manoeuvrability and eventually speed
-Gradual lowering of overworld acceleration
-Greater damage from making contact with asteroids and hyperstorms eventually leading to chances of... accidents and secondary effects like loss of items.

How much these should affect the player should come down to a variety of factors such as fleet size, amount of space, space distribution by ship, how things are stored, what is stored, etc...

What is considered to be stored in the alternate hold would come down primarily to value with the least valuable stuff being shunted to the alternate hold automatically so that the player isn't required to micromanage their inventory. You wouldn't want a chance to lose your Pristine Nanoforge now would you?

I've attempted to come up with a method but it's not nearly as simple to break down for me as I hoped so I'll leave it under the spoiler in case anyone wants inspiration for what to or what not to do since there's probably a better and much simpler way to do it.

But to get the gist:

If 100% of your overflow is stored at 4 spaces per unit everything is considered safely stowed with no penalties or drawbacks. Exactly as above, giving every fleet greater flexibility to their cargo, crew and or fuel capacities.

Beginning when anything is stored at 3 spaces per unit, there will be few drawbacks, starting with slightly lowered average maximum CR and minute chance of losing resources or crew and taking damage when struck while travelling.

Beginning when anything is stored at 2 spaces per unit, you're really starting to ask for trouble now with greater lowering to average maximum CR, tangible extra CR loss per battle and heightened chance for accident in dangerous terrain.

Beginning when anything is stored at 1 space per unit, Quarter Master caked in metal ore dust: "B-but sir, with all due respe--", Captain: "I bought the who-o-o-le damn ship! I'm gonna use the who-o-ole damn ship!". Down here, combat capabilities are now being greatly affected as well as overworld acceleration. Caution to avoid sudden jerky movements both inside and out of combat are necessary just to avoid major losses with minor losses all but certain.

And finally anything more than 100% at 1, supply consumption begins to rise and max burn level starts to drop as it does currently and maybe throw in increased fuel consumption for good measure.

Notice, anything that goes wrong will effectively cause a spike in supply consumption appropriate to the amount of risk the player carries along with loss of cargo that will shunt the system back to a safer state, driving the idea home to the player that they really should not do this, ever!
Breakdown
Spoiler
Ratios
What will be used to describe and determine what can and cannot occur.

Using the rules and only allowing the crew quarters and the cargo bay means two spaces for mixing. B = Cargo Bay  and  Q = Crew Quarters

Next are the contents X = Cargo, Y = People and Z = Fuel

With these five things, you can create three isolated but possible mixed contents scenarios, in no particular order:

-Scenario 1 occurs when the Quarters are full of people along with the fuel tanks but the Bay has at least 2 units of free space. This is the bare minimum that allows B to hold at most all three types of contents giving a B = (X:Y:Z) ratio.

-Scenario 2 occurs when only the fuel tanks are full but the Q and B have at least 1 unit of free space each. This is the bare minimum that allows both the spaces to hold at most two types of contents giving two ratios; B = (X:Z), Q = (Y:X).

-And scenario 3 when the B is full of cargo only but the Q have at least 1 unit of free space. This is the bare minimum for the crew quarters to carry at most two types of contents giving a Q = (Y:X) ratio.

But these ratios can't describe every situation we will face. The next part comes from safety margin levels of the possible contents, of which there are four, SM4, 3, 2 and 1 that correspond to their space conversion factors. With SM4 being the safest but least space efficient going down to SM1, the most hazardous but most space efficient.

Using a hypothetical situation, prioritising safety over space efficiency...

Say we have 100 crew quarters and we are running the bare minimum skeleton crew of 20.
100 - 20 leaves 80 crew quarters worth of space for cargo.

At the greatest safety margin SM4, we can store anywhere from 1 to 20 units of cargo safely, translating to between 4 to 80 crew quarter units in the crew quarters for  [20%(crew):80%(SM4)].

Allowing down to SM3 units worth of space means we can store anywhere from 21 to 26 units of cargo with
[17 @ SM4, 4 @ SM3] to [2 @ SM4, 24 @ SM3]
creating percentages of
[20%(crew):68%(SM4):12%(SM3)] to [20%(crew):8%(SM4):72%(SM3)].

Allowing down to SM2 allows us to store 27 to 40 units of cargo through [26 @ SM3, 1 @ SM2] to [40 @ SM2] translating to
[20%(crew):78%(SM3):2%(SM2)] to [20%(crew):80%(SM2)]

Finally allowing down to SM1, 41 to 80 units of cargo via [39 @ SM2, 2 @ SM1] to [80 @ SM1]
translating to
[20%(crew):78%(SM2):2%(SM1)] to [20%(crew):80%(SM1)]

I am not sure if it is possible for multiple SM levels to be used in the same space without forcing it but from this it appears our contents in the Quarters can only take any one of X(4), X(4:3), X(3), X(3:2), X(2), X(2:1) and X(1).

But with this, for those stored at a lower SM we can set  x = CargoL, y = PeopleL, z = FuelL to get clearer picture ratios as follows.

Scenario 1 B = (X:Y:Z) => B = (X:Y:y:Z:z)

Scenario 2 B = (X:Z), Q = (Y:X) => B = (X:Z:z), Q = (Y:X:x)

Scenario 3 Q = (Y:X) => Q = (Y:X:x)

Of course, there is variety within cargo and people so you could have an extremely long ratio but it would take much work to create and wouldn't last all that long due to continuous supply consumption. If we split Y into 'c' and 'm' for crew and marines and use 'F' for food and 'O' for ore, a typical situation might look like:

Q = (c:m:F:f:O)

Penalties
Let's now take a deeper look at what allowing lower SMs can do...

I think the penalties should be dealt as a combination of passive effects and activated effects.

-Passive
These are the relatively boring things like lowered average CR for the fleet, slower repair times, lower acceleration, etc...

How much they should affect a fleet and when is not clear nor easy to decide upon as the distributions and overlap of SMs and the number of pairing combinations of will vary depending on free space, generally favouring large fleets over small.

Also since the current inventory system pays no attention to where things are stored, this attempts to follow, however if ship's combat capabilities would take a hit, ideally we'd want combat ships to be affected last so as to keep combat capabilities as high as possible in all but the most extreme of situations. And so we would still need some method of prioritisation. Perhaps this can be linked with the current fleet list order and the sizes of their holds as necessary.

-Activating
These are the dice rolls when the fleet is harried, struck or jerked by terrain in the overworld and after combat engagements having utilised at risk ships. These need to be such that using much of that free space is low enough of a risk to entice players but eventually highly punishing when too much is used should a player decide to, starting with the probabilities of something happening with a given SM level. An extreme example would be something like, any item with an SM3 having a 25% chance for an activation penalty, SM2 a 50% chance and SM1, 100% chance.

--Effects
What could happen after a successful dice roll depends on the content type in question, its surrounding contents inside the hold and the options available. This is where the ratios come in by outlining what the stray item can affect, the likelihood of being affected determined by the percentage of space taken up, sheer volume and the effects from the item hierarchy or the rock, paper, scissors to determine what comes out on top.

By this I mean things like:
Toughness – determining if it has a chance to damage or be damaged
Durability – it's health points
Weight – it's attack
Special 1 – secondary effects
Special 2 – tertiary effects

Picking a few things as examples:

Food – Toughness = 2, Durability = 10, Weight = 3, Special 1 = Mess, Special 2 = None
Transplutonics – Toughness = 5, Durability = 15, Weight = 100, Special 1 = Radioactive, Special 2 = Brittle
Recreational Drugs – Toughness = 1, Durability = 1, Weight = 2, Special 1 = Intoxicating, Special 2 = None
Crew – Toughness = 1, Durability = 10, Weight = 1, Special 1 = Quick Reactions, Special 2 = Hazard Protection

So Transplutonics could crush anything in this list and irradiate but has a chance for itself to break apart when it does. Crew despite losing to almost everything can save itself with their 'Quick Reactions' or buff their durability with 'Hazard Protection'. Food may not crush the crew but could cause enough of a mess to lower CR. And Recreational Drugs could give one crew member the high of their life, knocking them out for a very long time.

In most cases there would only ever be two types of contents in a space, leading to the most likely scenario of three unique things within, for example in the crew quarters you can only have people and cargo as your two contents given my rules which could be crew and marines along side food as the third unique thing. It would certainly be possible to have more than three at once in the crew quarters but you'd really have to try to make it so and you'd need one of each for many of the cases and an inventory filled with the most expensive item which is unlikely through typical play and even if you did manage to create such a scenario, you wouldn't be able to keep it at the extreme for long before supply consumption automatically brought the situation back to a safer situation.

*Due to this hierarchy and the possible danger to valuables, it may be necessary now for every hold to have a small portion dedicated to absolutely protecting whatever is inside dependant on hull, that automatically prioritises valuables but can be hand-picked by the player; making whatever is inside immune to these activational penalties. A sort of SMM or SMA for Safety Margin Max/Absolute. This could also help explain how we can still find stuff in derelict vessels. Back now to the effects...

Highlighting some effect ideas above, they are at the extreme end of things. If we bring things back to normal levels and concentrate on food we can have a better understanding on what normally happens. Food is one of our simplest forms of cargo. It's cheap, light weight, inert, simple and very easy to come by. Let's imagine what sort of damage just 1 could cause in the crew quarters from (in my view) the most likely to the least...

It could just do nothing or fall over having no effect.

But it could damage itself if thrown hard enough by a collision in the overworld such that food packets burst, wasting a unit of food and slightly lowering CR to clean it up.

It could alternatively/also damage something else equivalent or softer than itself like destroying some other food, if it were also in the crew quarters.

Or possibly damage the hold it's in, temporarily dropping their maximum capacity, potentially forcing a higher SM level until repaired depending on the damage magnitude (though probably not for long owing to supply consumption and given it's ya know... food).

Or worse crushing a crew member, injuring them and leading to a drop in combat readiness. (I do wonder why we never see injured crew... CR can't replace limbs can it?)

And keep in mind this is just 1 unit of food. If multiple units of food acted on the same crew member, they could crush them to death hence the possible need for an SMA to keep your skeleton crew from... well... breaking their skeletons, and protecting your valuables.

Imagine what things other than food could do... Transplutonics getting charged by solar flares and magnetic fields releasing radiation and making the crew sick... yikes!

Priority
The order of operations would be determined primarily by the SM level with SM1 taking priority, then SM2 followed by SM3 before the item toughness hierarchy. That way if something at SM3 were going to target a crew member but something at SM1 targetted the SM3 item, it may just kill the SM3 before it has a chance to harm the crew member as if the SM1 were looking out for this particular crew member this one time... and these sorts of events could be logged to fill in the players history of events.

But that's basically it... Pushing the concept any further, I guess certain things like food don't require nearly as much to store safely as say fuel or organics since it can only do so much damage. Maybe depending on how hazardous or fragile determines the space efficiency levels you can get away with so food could only take 1 or 2 units of space with it being completely safe taking 2 and only hazardous at 1 but not necessarily a 100% chance something will happen. So SMs between items would no longer be the same, allowing independent space efficiency but I'm happy enough having described this idea to this level.
[close]

This I feel is much more interesting because it opens up the perils of being a spacer and it makes hauling so much less limited by cargo bays and instead the player's... stubbornness and greed, allowing the game to finally accept the high risk, little reward, 'carry all the shopping back home in one trip' strategy we all know and love! It could even be embraced with secret extra experience and story points for true legitimacy.

And on another note it also strengthens the slave trade meta. Surely that can only be a good thing...

I think expanding on weight as a concept beyond combat collisions would help with this system in regards to acceleration both in combat and the overworld and give materials and items another facet to their identity, heft. Imagine you've just found a load of transplutonics and you were flying all light and fancy but after taking it on board, now you're super slow and sluggish. Gives us another sense of the universe. Though prioritising which ships carry the heaviest goods to avoid slowing combat ships in combat the most would need that prioritising system :( but still would help with my final suggestion on this front which takes a rather different approach.
[close]
[close]

Ship internal space exchanges/conversions
Spoiler
Allow the player to exchange (including when custom ordering ships) one storage space for something else; be it another type like cargo space, crew quarters or fuel capacity or alternatively even allow players to give it up partially or entirely (down to a bare minimum) for small ship bonuses.

I know ships are limited by their blueprints but given how many hull mods can be packed in to these babies, surely there must be some leeway.

As for the converting of one type of space into another and by how much would depend on whether an overflow idea above were integrated and of course on the ship type in question, and possibly the choice of space the player wants to convert it to, but I guess a number between 0 and 1 such that say you want to drop the crew quarters to as close to skeleton level as possible leading in our case to a hypothetical reduction of 100; if the conversion ratio were 0.6 you can exchange it for up to either 60 more fuel capacity or cargo space or even a combination of the two totalling a maximum of 60, and/or for some incentives for giving up space such as:

-Slightly lowered maintenance costs per month
-Slightly less fuel burned
-Slightly higher combat readiness recovery
-Combat speed/manoeuvrability bonus
-Extra OP

If enough is given up perhaps even an 'Unused Space' hull mod could be added that can be exchanged with any other hullmod at half price or maybe if paired with 'Converted Hanger' negates all its drawbacks and all the aforementioned perks creating a normal hanger.

Further to this maybe even AI cores could be tied in to "assist" in finding the "optimal" layouts with the "most optimal" costing an arm and a leg for the absolute best minimums and maximums at diminishing returns. The combination of no/Corrupted/Decayed(it exists...)/Pristine Nanoforge and no/Gamma/Beta/Alpha AI core could create a 4x4 matrix that determines bonuses, limits and costs of which rise exponentially, making lower tiers seriously worth considering early on.

---
A new credit sink that allows the player to really hone their fleets and make them their own for whatever their objective. Akin to overclocking; not necessary, but ekes out those last few drops of performance or provides an alternate means of boosting inventory space and could make the ship market a bit more variable on top of d-mods. Giving chance for some ships sold at planets with Corrupted Nanoforges to be a cut above the rest and Pristine Nanoforges near the crème of the crop and even provide evidence of AI core usage... looking at you Culann!
Spoiler
I've always wanted actual Safety Overrides to be like this in that you can tweak any part of your ship for extra performance at exponential hazard risk increases that can cascade horribly when things go wrong, whether in combat or the overworld along with potentially higher resource consumption rates at certain points depending on what overrides are disabled and how far you push each system from their norm. Faster mount turn rate for this specific mount? Go ahead, but if it fails... You want higher ship acceleration? Sure go right on, but if it fails... You want improved flux to damage ratios for your shield? By all means, but if it fails... Conversely you could under-clock and save resources by lowering performance where ever you want which could also increase redundancy in addition to saving resources. So you could remake safety overrides as it currently performs but you'd have much more options to come up with overrides of your own.
[close]
[close]

4
General Discussion / Re: The lack of midline capitals
« on: February 09, 2022, 01:11:53 PM »
My two cents for a Midline capital class. To me the Champion is a mashup of a Sunder and Eagle so for a capital I'd just want a doubling of this excluding the large missile mounts.

Two Large hybrid hardpoint mounts with many, many medium universal turrets and maybe a hanger bay for good measure. A star destroyer-esque bigger brother for all the Midline cruisers. The large mounts would be embedded much further back, either side of the core of the ship such that you would have difficulty targetting anything smaller that a cruiser up close with both but with all the medium turrets, shouldn't be a problem 1v1. Could out disco the Paragon in all but punch.

For a system... Siege Mode anyone? For the uninitiated, plants itself down like a station losing all mobility for much greater range, extra damage and extremely high turn rate and turn acceleration until it reverts back to normal mode. Would be able to shoot over allies. Transforming either way is costly timewise and it can't do anything during that period. I do suggest it somewhat as a joke as I haven't given it much thought but it could fulfill that want for uniqueness.

My thinking was more that it would be the ultimate all rounder for its class which I guess would go against that so idk, lateral burn acceleration boosts for weaving left and right? Higher weapon fire travel speed and firing rate? Greater number of charges and higher recharge rate? Would quite like to blast things away with two Autopulse lasers on steroids...

Personally don't understand the purpose of the Conquest. I haven't had any success using it and really dislike how it handles so a new Midline capital would be very welcome from me.

5
Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread
« on: February 09, 2022, 02:11:55 AM »
Have a few you may want to look at as well as some questions that may also help identify other typos.
Typos
Possible typos
Questions
Comms ID, Comms-ID, Comm ID... Comm directory, Comms directory... are they all valid?

Capital letters:
In speech text, there are many occassions the talker will gesture in some way mid sentence before continuing on with what they have to say. But the continued speech sometimes starts with a capital letter, and sometimes without despite the lack of a full stop. Is there any reason?

I'm not sure how many times I've seen it but on most occasions when referring to Baird, it's 'provost' but rarely it's 'Provost'. I thought it was 'Provost' in speech like this but Vym's #777 image (lucky!) is an example against that and it makes me wonder why we aren't referred to as 'Captain' and also why 'nav' isn't 'Nav' and 'ops', 'Ops' etc...? Also found something of a similar vein with the 'Laicalle Executive Council' then 'Laicalle Habitat executive council'.

And why is it 'independents' and 'pirates' for missions but 'Independents' and 'Pirates' for Faction and Intel tabs?

If you could, please enlighten me on the above so I can lay my poor brain to rest; it would be much appreciated! :'(

Discontinuity
Searching the Groombridge habitat before speaking with the technicians doesn't acknowledge the fact the player knows what's there.

Taking the Hamatsu back to Callisto Ibrahim before starting the Ziggurat/Alpha site story line lacks acknowledgement from her.

Not jumping to the Galatia gate from Magec or using no gates and then travelling to the Academy still seems to imply they know what happened.

6
I've seen a (large) solar system sized ghost that causes all hyperspace clouds to become storms as it passes over them.
I knew I'd seen something like that and now I've finally found one again. Was wondering if interdicting it would do anything interesting and well...

If anyone manages to find one of these can they confirm my findings?

Save a copy when you find one.

Now interdict it and immediately sensor burst afterwards when it slows to a stop but before it flees, then when it goes away, wait. It seems like another circling ghost will spawn after to guide you to something... in my case a pirate fleet.

Now reopen the save and do it the other way round. I found it generates a different ghost that just follows you slowly unless it gets on top of you or follows for too long, then it vanishes but when you interdict it before then, runs away at a followable burn 20 pace. You can get on top of it using hyper storms and you can in a way manipulate its direction depending on the direction you approach it i.e. if you go left of it, it will go right... this one is definitely different but it eventually vanishes and I'm not sure if anything more can be done to it. Maybe you need volatiles or Ziggy...?

Found a second one but neither had any effect besides fleeing...

7
Bug Reports & Support / Re: Fatal: No valid display modes found.
« on: February 02, 2022, 10:35:29 PM »
screenscaleoverride is in the same place i.e. settings.json

Fractal Softworks\Starsector\starsector-core\data\config (here)

Opening settings.json in Notepad++ might be of use to see things better.
https://notepad-plus-plus.org/

Attached an image of what setting.json looks like using Notepad ++

Let us know how it goes!

[attachment deleted by admin]

8
Suggestions / Re: Finer stack selection control
« on: February 01, 2022, 05:11:42 PM »
At that point it would be faster (and much more intuitive) to just open up a text box and have players enter the number they want manually.
I agree that would be intuitive but this also tries to minimise the amount of stuff the player would have to do. To me, a text box would require, shift, click, search, press, search, press, search, press, search, press, Enter. But if you make a mistake you have to select the number to edit or worse do all the steps again, though I guess you could have arrows above and below the values that would allow scrolling or bumping up or down by one but then you have to interrupt your train of thought on how much you want to decide on the numbers rather than all of it being one fluid thing.

The jumps in the current bar is the main issue. I get a pattern in my head and then the consistency is broken again and again and again. And so I end up wasting time fighting the system before accepting defeat and doing more shifts and clicks and movements than should be necessary.

Quote
Although, I do think the current system is well thought out. The idea is that if you want to withdraw a small amount of something, you’re more likely to want a precise number, while for large amounts (>~500), it’s likely that you just want “a lot.” So the logarithmic-ish scaling makes sense.

Additionally, if you wanted, say, exactly 2438 of something, you could drag to withdraw 2000, then drag again to withdraw roughly 450, then make a final drag to correct any imprecision. This is basically the same number of steps as tracing out “hooked L-shapes.”
It fails at the low end too. Jumps of 5s, then 10s?! How can you ever be precise when two movements are required for anything above a 5? You want 6? Sorry 5 + 1 or 10 - 4 please! You want 35? Sorry 30 + 5 or 40 - 5 please!

And your 2438 example really highlights it for me:
2000 + 450 - 10 - 2
Spoiler
If overshooting and cutting back at minimum I count 1 shift, 8 clicks (click & hold and depositing) and 4 careful bar drags and 8 more movements (4 back and forths).
[close]
2000 + 425 + 10 + 1 + 1 + 1
Spoiler
Undershooting, 1 shift, 9 clicks, 3 bar drags and 6 more movements.
[close]
Notice the extra mental taxation on the player and choice on how best to approach? I don't want to have to think how many times I'm gonna have to fill a bar to get precisely what I want and I don't want to spend time carefully dragging that bar around. Robustness and speed is what it needs.

My idea is just a few more bars split into squares orthogonal to each other with the final bar emphasising the 1-99 region so it should be more intuitive than currently and you'd only need one shift, one click and really at most 3 quick movements that combine to one overall movement and one for inventory transfer for an exact number.

If 3.2 were implemented, movements in the thousands would just look like a mirrored '7', and those in the hundreds a '\'. And if you really need the tens of thousands, a fancier mirrored '7' since >20k is pretty much out of the question. The way I imagine it, it would be super quick, no waiting for things to pop up in case anyone thought that, no need to be so careful and precise; just move-move-boom. And the player would be able to get a feel for it because there is consistency at all levels! It's only limitation is anything in the millions which it can still technically support if you extend the south west squares far enough. How this method wouldn't be intuitive is beyond me and I seriously can't see how this is the same.


9
Suggestions / Finer stack selection control
« on: February 01, 2022, 12:25:59 AM »
The current method of selecting a stack of items is too clunky to the point I still prefer when we had a bar up to 1000 that always went up in 1s, but that too had its issues so I'd like to share an evolution of this I have in mind.

1. Holding shift, clicking and holding the left mouse button on the item would open a small start or +1 square and letting go adds 1 to the stack like it does currently.

2. If you wanted something up to 99 moving your mouse to the right before letting go opens a bar to control that amount; always going up in 1s. So if you want 56, shift, click and hold, move right till it says 56 and let go like it currently is.

3. Now if you want in the hundreds, going down from the start square would allow selection of hundred squares, so '1h', '2h', '3h' and so on up to 900.  And if you want a 1 to 99 as well, you go right on which ever 'h' square you're hovering over. So for 389, hold shift, click item and hold, go down three squares to 3h and then right to open the bar, across to 89 in the bar and let go tracing an 'L' shape.

If you decide you actually wanted 489, there are two ideas here.
3.1 Either head back left until you're back at 3h, drop down to 4h, then right again to 89
or
3.2 Allow switching between 'h' squares here by moving up and down at will with the '1 to 99 bar' following. I think this shifting is the only possible at this point.

4. If you want 1,000s up to 9,000, from the start square we go left for 'k' squares.
Once you've picked the 'k' square you want, going down starts the 'h' squares like before but starting with '0h' and right like before for 1 to 99. So if you wanted 8130, you go left from the start square eight times for 8k, down twice for 1h and right to open the bar to 30 and let go, tracing a 'c' shape. If you decide you wanted 7130, you'd have to head all the way back to 7k then follow it back to 130 or just take 8130 and select 1k to place back...

5.If you need 10,000s, up from the start square first to the desired 'da*k' square then left for 'k' squares starting with 0k, down for 'h' squares starting with 0h and right for 1-99. I guess tracing a hooked 'L' shape?

With this method, I feel like there should be enough screen real estate to cover most cases, especially since withdrawing in the 10,000s is rare (Hypershunt intensifies) and the bar can be made much smaller since it's only between 1 and 99.

6?. 100,000s... at a push, from start, south-west for 'h*k' squares up to the stack's limit before going up for the 'da*k' squares...but ew.

It shouldnt all be visible otherwise so much would overlap. I imagine when seeing the start square, the other square options would be hinted at with a revealing circle UI effect thats like shining a torch so the adjacent squares are slightly visible in the circle but faded, becoming clearer as the mouse moves in the particular direction and definitely visible if selected.

If quick stacks of 5, 10, 25 and 50 are needed, I imagine at point 2, if you had those options above the bar it's just shift, click, right and up to select, but not compatible with 3.2

Also might be possible to go in reverse starting with right for 1-99 then down for hundreds, left for thousands and up for tens of thousands if so desired.

10
Suggestions / Rogue weapons on disabled ships
« on: January 29, 2022, 04:20:35 PM »
Piggy backing off this thread, I too came across that situation thinking it was a bug.

Since this is intentional, I think if more weapons incorporated this sort of behaviour but with a randomised activation timer and perhaps with a chance at self destruction, the idea would be better sold to the player while making combat more interesting and give another explanation as to why so many weapons are lost come time for salavaging. Quite why our weapons are immune has yet to be explained... maybe that can be one for Iron mode!

Some ideas:
For continuous ballistics, the gun could start firing but heat up over time due to lack of coolant till it melts the weapon to destruction.
For beam weaponry, an unstoppable run away reaction causing the beam to rapidly increase its damage output in a short space of time eventually causing the weapon to explode.
For any missiles remaining, a chance to become dislodged, floating around like mines and activating if bumped, targetting what ever is in front or just exploding outright.

11
Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread
« on: January 27, 2022, 02:56:16 PM »
Might be just me but I can't unsee it now. Where ever there is mention of the "14th", it appears as if there's a double space in front whether in the codex or conversation text which looks a little odd.

12
Suggestions / Re: Battle AutoPilot On by default option
« on: January 25, 2022, 12:06:05 PM »
Good idea! Honestly I don't think it even needs to be an option, considering autopilot is so easily and naturally disabled. I can't think of a use-case where having it on at the start would be a bad thing (although I suppose it could possibly confuse new players?).
Possible issue where the AI will switch the autofiring state of weapon groups to their preference before you can take control. If that were resolved I'd be for it.

13
Suggestions / Bulk wants & suggestions
« on: January 22, 2022, 06:18:56 PM »
Mostly for polish but basically all I can think of right now to that end. They certainly aren't the best but I hope at least one of these can be of some use. Personal thoughts about the current update and major suggestions may come in future and if so hopefully soon. Thanks for this amazing game and apologies if we got off on the wrong foot.

Overworld/travelling
Spoiler
+Nascent gravity wells become like stable jump points
I'd like it to be possible to click on one to jump through if 'Transverse jump' is unlocked. When I jump through one for the first time, I "unlock" it by discovering where it leads allowing me to use it in future like any old jump point.

+Queued abilities
Mostly after the use of 'Transverse jump' in and out of systems. I'd prefer to be able to have 'Go dark' waiting to activate as soon as it becomes possible upon jumping into a system rather than manually spamming until it activates.

+Transponder warning light
I'd like the transponder ability to flash when in a system that requires it on to avoid attracting the authorities like how 'Emergency burn' or 'Transverse jump' does when warning you of potentially damaging ships.
Reason: I frequently forget that it's off having used 'Transverse jump' or accessed a market without being detected so when I travel towards another planet/station in the system I think a little visual cue would go a long way to alert the player before the authorities do.

+Destination target quick list
Points of interest, quest target destination, favourites, most frequented, closest stable jump point, closest gate quick option menu to set a target.
Reason: Less time spent bringing up the map and intel to plot a course.
[close]

History tab
Spoiler
Best update ever!!! Didn't play 9.5 if it was in by then.
Would like to see:
+Income – from everything to mission pay outs and selling raw goods and materials
+Sensor profile to strength ratio
+Distance travelled
+Burn level
+Fuel consumed or consumption rate
+Supplies consumed or consumption rate
+Crew deaths
+Player worth - from credits, ships, assets, colonies... anything that has a base value associated.
+Credits spent – refunds should bring it back down
+Fleet composition by size classes and by types like freighter, phase, carrier, tanker, battlecruiser, etc... and colour coded
+Fleet weapon composition
+Selectable time ranges to concentrate on
+Let the player add comments to the graphs
+Story line and side quests recording the beginning, key moment and completion points!
+Full screen mode!
[close]

Refitting
Spoiler
+Pasting the last installed weapon would be better if all local inventories were combined. I had two in my cargo with many in my colony where I was docked but after exhausting my cargo I couldn't paste any more, forcing me to explicitly pick from the colony to replenish the pasting ammo.
+Middle mouse button should also paste the last installed weapon
+Add (++) 'Fill' and (--) 'Empty' buttons to Capacitors and Vents over shift click for less keyboard reliance.

+Testing equipment
Effect: Allows testing of anything docked at the station that the player doesn't own. The tested asset would show up a transparent ghost ships, weapon, LPC or hullmod, reminding you 'you don't yet own this or not yet installed' in case any need to be purchased from the docked station. Testing anything would require a small deposit. If you buy it, the deposit is returned. If not, it is taken upon leaving the station

+Information
++Rather than an objective turn rate, use its numerical one with and without flux for ships, weapons and omni shields, and add times to do a 180 again with and without flux or when firing and not firing.
++State the expansion rate of shields in degrees per second somewhere
++Expand on manoeuvrability by adding acceleration and time to reach normal, /w any modifiers, /w modifiers and or 'zero flux speed boost' top speed
++Add an info card pop up when hovering over a vacant mount explaining what it is, be it a Hard point or Turret and what weapon sizes and damage types the mount accepts
++Add 'generator' or 'emitter' to 'Front & Omni Shield' in 'Defense' for ship info cards.
++Make 'Defense' on the ship info card 'Primary defensive system'
++Make a shield section to have the 'shield' in "shield arc", "shield flux/sec" and "shield flux/dam" redundant and then we can finally have "flux/damage" and "flux/second"
++In the weapon groups menu, next to the 'total flux per second', can we have columns for both 'total initial damage per second' and 'total sustained damage per second'?
++Also in the weapon group menu, you have a "group" column consisting of "weapon group n", suggest just numbers
++Differentiate damage to 'Hard damage' and 'Soft damage' to remove the 'beam' and 'no hard flux' declarations and have it play nice with the shield's flux/damage

++Ion beam stands out amongst all weapons dealing EMP damage as having that stat simply state "EMP DPS". Granted its role is primarily EMP damage but "DPS" here is the first reference I know of in game over 'damage/second'.

++On the Cryoblaster at least, where it explains what its Hybrid mount type means it references "slots" over "mounts". May want to keep tabs on that...

++Change 'EMP damage' to something not referencing 'damage'.
Suggest 'EMR' for electromagnetic resonance or 'EMI' for interference or dare I suggest 'EMT' for... turbulence.
Reason: Saves on clarification for shields not able to convert EMP damage to Flux. And I think it just sounds better. 100 EMR per second vs 100 EMP damage per second.
[close]

Colonies
Spoiler
+At the screen to start a colony, the crew requirements showing your skeleton crew level would be handy.

+Allow players the option to have their colonies automatically stockpile resources it demands using a small percentage of profits set by the player and allow them to also set the length of time to determine the amounts of resources to aim for that would be guaranteed to cover such a period as well as which resources they want it to stockpile or ignore. Also have a way for the player to see the progress to acheiving them.
Reason: It's a bit too much effort filling and keeping track of each base manually, especially since it can't be known when colonies draw from their stockpile without the player checking periodically.

+Add an extra condition to the "Supplied in faction" section along the lines of "within the system"
Effect: Significantly decreases the chances of lost shipments.
Reason: I have a system consisting of five colonised planets that can supply itself with everything except fuel and marines. It has tight security, orbits are close with two making an orbital pair and no pirate activity to speak of, yet shipments are being lost and none of them are fuel or marines. It's infuriating when my Gas Giant with a food shortage has a Terran planet orbiting it with all the farms and tonnes of food but nothing can be done unless I physically transport it over. That Gas Giant for all intents and purposes should be immune to food shortages unless it's Terran neighbour falls.

+Delays
Effect: Gives possiblity for any construction project to be delayed dependant on... something.
Reason: Being able to upgrade to 'Heavy Batteries' and set up a 'Planetary Shield' just as an expedition arrived was nice... too nice. Made me want a chance for delays across the board so it would be more a gamble whether it would be ready in time as a possible punishment for favouring credits over safety. Accidents would be a good addition, cost overruns too. It's new frontier; setting up a base should not be plain sailing!

+Supplying other colony missions
Should be a much bigger deal in both money to be made and gravity of the situation. I think these missions shouldn't come from bars but colonies themselves or keep them but have the main ones at your colonies for above board deals. Both should generate relation points over time and would be nice to have implications depending on interfaction politics.

+Allow negative growth to drop a colony size but requires -50% to go down leaving it half way between levelling up or requiring -100% points further to fall again or +50% to go back up.
Reason: Nice to have

+Gas Giants should have 'High gravity' be possible but not guaranteed
Reason: Assuming the people are living in the atmospheres at the "surface" of Gas giants, they can be surprisingly earth-like if Saturn is anything to go by.

+Gas Giants should have 'Supersonic winds' be a planetary hazard that's almost guaranteed that replaces 'Extreme weather'
Reason: An alternative to 'High gravity' and because 'Extreme weather' I feel isn't enough for these beasts.

+Allow players to increase production limits on large vessels when setting custom orders.
Reason: 2 sometimes isn't enough.

+Give Coronal Hypershunts active and inactive status on the map like gates.
Reason: Actually managed to forget I hadn't activated this particular one... In my defence they were basically next to each other.

+Make Coronal Hypershunts and Cryosleepers show a 10LY radius on the map.
Reason: No more measuring with finger and thumb nails...

+Colony histories - Separate from player history to break down each colony.
++Credits per month
++Credit income and breakdown of sources such as industries and further with credits generated from any AI core usage and items
++Upkeep and a break down of sources
++Market share
++Accessability
++Stability
++Growth
++Fleet size
[close]

AI overworld behaviour
Spoiler
Giving the overworld new life!
+Give [REDACTED] stations abilities to deter enemies in the overworld
Reason: With all that has been added, they aren't much of a challenge or to be feared anymore. I'd like them to be given some fresh fangs and new life.
Simple idea: Significantly increase their sensor range and have them able to generate an interdiction larger and more potent than a typical fleet can muster that lowers combat readiness. But also add arc gaps in their visual disc to allow the player to sneak much closer to them if they play their cards right. Different gap patterns could also be used to differentiate their state with more gaps for the weaker and fewer for the tougher stations. The gaps however should only take you so far, requiring an emergency burn to finish the last leg before that interdiction can be charged up and fired. And maybe the gaps are invisible until you unlock a skill or get some technology to upgrade your sensors...

+Intrafaction communication for fleets and stations
Effect: Allows fleets and stations to at least call for backup and warn to flee depending on how big the enemy fleet is relative to them that enters their visual range.
Reason: More deterence by giving the player pause for thought on whether they can handle what's to come after the first battle. Could be built on further to set up interesting story moments like if you have friends in a faction that just turned hostile toward you for what ever reason and they send out search fleets some of which successfully find you but intentionally sends the wrong signal to their allies, allowing you to get away...

+Shared overworld vision
Effect: Same faction fleets can form makeshift networks amongst themselves to share visuals with those in their sensor range.
Reason: I'd like faction fleets to work more as a team in accomplishing things like searching for enemies. If they know what the other can see, they can search different areas to increase the odds of striking gold. I feel Pirates do something like this to the player occasionally but I think [REDACTED] should be able to do it too and much better. If this were integrated, would also be nice if having very high relations with a faction allows the player to automatically connect with allies for more vision. Stray too far from the makeshift group, the connection is severed and shared vision is lost until reestablished.

+Fleet curiosity
Effect: Activating, taking control and salvaging sector assets would make fleets curious to check out those surrounding areas, especially if they control the system. More activity without visual contact should update them on where to search and put them on high alert to protect and attempt to find, trap and eliminate the perceived threat.
Reason: Makes messing with factions more of a challenge and can cause major complications down the line for the player. And with this we can put a stop to the illogical instant drops in faction relations from breaking down their stuff for salvage when they shouldn't know who did it.

+Speed checks
Reason: An odd suggestion perhaps but it bugs me that I can gain a boost to burn level by hacking a nav buoy in the core systems but no one bats an eye. Would be annoying to have authorities make sure I'm travelling at the expected burn rate if they've already seen my fleet before moving at my normal speed before I hacked the buoy.
Hegemony officer: Yu got a loicense for thet bern level? Me: Uhh. Heg-officer: May oi take a luk at yer engins sir? Me:*Sweats*
[close]

Combat
Spoiler
+Key combos beyond ctrl + ?, alt + ?, ...
Allow more flexible button combos to do things. As examples for combat, 'turn left + turn right' keys when pressed together could be made to apply the brake and 'strafe left + strafe right' to control wing engage/regroup, zoom in and out could be made to require ctrl which frees up the mousewheel to possibly allow switching between weapon groups...
Reason: More efficient use of keys allows reuse elsewhere.

+Weapon groups
++Weapon group levels – Primary, Alternative and Secondary
Reason: "Finisher" weapon groups should be possible to fire with a push of a button rather than having to give up control of the current group to select... and then fire... and then reselect back to the first.
+++'Primary' - the main and starting weapon group fired by the LMB with range limits shown.
+++'Alternative' - activated by a single key press but unselectable*.
+++'Secondary' - what we currently have.
*And since 'Alternative' can't be selected, allow coloured circle rings of radii set by the player to fade in and out around their ship as enemies draw near to show when one is within the preferred firing range for those weapon groups and show ammo and reload states elsewhere.

++Continuous auto firing behaviour
Effect: Gives the player the option to force auto firing weapon groups to continually fire while reacquiring targets.
Reason: Unlike the Guardian PD System and Burst PD Laser, weapons like the Tactical Laser and Rift Beam must wait until their beams have reached the necessary length to take on a threat. This creates an issue when acquiring new targets as the beam is turned off which, given the typical direction and concentration of threats, leads to lost time spent to push the beam out again creating a domino effect that wastes opportunities and flux! This is made even worse when the target is eliminated by something else which could be potentially disastarous in critical situations relying on short ranged PD weapons. Given their relatively quick tracking without hull mods and low flux costs when firing, I think it makes perfect sense to have these types of weapons be allowed to fire continuously until no threats are detected or if the last few threats in range fall outside the weapon's current orientation by +/- 'A' degrees where 'A' can be set by the player for fine tuning.

++Custom auto firing engagement ranges
Effect: Allows the player to set maximum and minimum engagement limits relative to the weapon as to when they want an auto firing weapon to start and stop firing at a threat regardless of the weapons actual range limits.
Reason: Overcome the lag of warming a weapon up to its max range and allow it to make use of the tiny bit of range that can still cause damage that lies just outside of the currently defined arcs or save flux when you'd prefer another weapon to deal with those close range threats.

++Semi-automatic firing behaviour
Reason: An issue cropped up when using four Antimatter SRM launchers on the Paragon in 'Alternating' mode where occasionally two would eventually be let off in one click no matter how careful I was.
Effect: Fire button only fires one burst from a weapon if 'Alternating' and from all weapons if 'Linked' in a group then stops. Full auto should be unlocked if I hold another key like 'ctrl' or it could be a toggle switch like auto fire.

+Highly situational extra targetting options. Personally think Middle Mouse Button should be a default alternative for 'Set target'.
++Ignore targets - Not to be confused with the 'Avoid' command. For when facing multiple medium and large threats.
Effect: Allow selection of multiple targets for auto firing weapon groups on the controlled ship to ignore.
Reason: Save flux or funnel weapons to concentrate fire on targets outside of the selected weapon group arcs while the player deals with the main threat.
Suggested button combination: (shift + default)

++Queue targets - Multiple target selection for serial elimination of small threats like small craft/wings and cannon fodder.
Effect: Force auto firing weapons that can't reach the main target to prioritise Queued targets based on order threats were selected in. Weapon groups would prioritise the 1st else the 2nd ignoring the 3rd and below until one of the two are eliminated at which point every target below is shifted up in priority for weapons to retarget accordingly.
Reason: Again to save flux and concentrate fire
Suggested button combination: (ctrl + default)

++Parallel weapon group targetting
Effect: Allows the player the option to force a weapon group to allocate weaponsfire on threats evenly when multiple enter range as best it can.
Reason: Hopefully preventing overkill with PD weapons vs missiles.

++Concentrate fire
Effect: Allows a point to be set on the current target to train autofiring weapons with enough range upon.
Reason: Many times in taking on an enemy, I will see exposed hull and fire upon it myself but my autofiring groups, while still firing on the target, will instead continue aiming centre of the ship, inevitably wasting flux on the shield. I would like to be able to tell my auto firing weapons exactly where to point on a specific target unless I can have weapons spanning multiple weapon groups so I may have one group for myself that takes control of all weapons in those moments.
Suggest it be part of the standard targetting system. Maybe as an in game upgrade to what we currently have.
Activation: Possibly by holding down the default targetting button over the target to allow point selection, at which point you can let go, aim and press again to set the point. And targetting it again or something else removes the point.

++Directed shield targetting - Effects Omni shields until targets are destroyed or all targets are dropped.
Effect: Makes the ship's shield midpoint ignore the mouse and face in the direction of the mean angle between the selected targets and possibly biased depending on deployment cost differences of the enemies or threat type and distance away. Multiple targets would be selectable. I'd expect players would use two for enemies and one extra for any missiles. And for missiles in particular, in addition to being able to select the missile to block manually, also allow just the missile system on the enemy ship to be targetted to have the shield prioritise missiles of that type until deselected or the enemy is destroyed. 
Reason: A possibly better than nothing method for occasionally relieving control of the shield from the player
Suggested button combination: (ctrl + RMB) to set and cancel.

++Request friendly fire
Effect: Makes nearby ships target the requesting ship until it has reached a certain level of flux.
Entirely depends on how far you want to take Energy weapon mastery but I do like the idea of doing an Ironman-Thor "Okay Thor, hit me!" combo but I guess you'd also need a weapon that works on flux alone or much better with high flux levels.

+UI/UX
++Add a simulator 'reset' button option upon pressing 'esc' in the simulator.

++When the screen goes all white from an explosion, allow seeing outlines/x-ray vision until back to normal

++Bolder combat notification pop ups.
Suggest replacing text pop ups with green 'On' icons that quickly fade and constant, bold red, partially clear, circles with X's over offline weapons that fill in like a clock or just state the time left (with miliseconds) to let the player know at a glance the state of the ship and how long till a weapon is back. Engines shouldn't be necessary.

++Clearer Target
Reason: Having a small screen and possibly being dumber than most, occasionally I will become confused as to whether the currently set target is in fact the enemy I want to eliminate due to the current target wandering off screen making the information hover over the actual enemy and leading me to waste a salvo or two of missiles before realising.
Suggest: Adding a large cross hair over the target depending on size or just highlight the current target with a much bolder outline.

++Obfuscated target information
Reason: First time I fought Ziggy my curiosity was way too easily satisfied by being able to check the target's information. Would be really nice if it were obfuscated until some trigger and the same with the super weapons only visible if you've owned one like a Pokémon's info in the Pokédex.

++Alternative information relaying
Reason: Keeps the player's attention where it's needed and hopefully also helps the visually impaired and those with hearing difficulties.
For when...
  • switching to another weapon group
  • a weapon or system has been reloaded both if at all and when full
  • charges have been filled to a certain capacity set by the player
  • parts of and when the whole weapon group is disabled
  • parts of and when the whole engine is disabled
  • a weapon/weapon group/the engine is back to full operation
  • the whole ship is back to full operation
+++Using chimes and alerts
Suggest at the refit screen adding the options for subtle but noticeable and unique audible chimes in combat. I'm thinking a cross between collecting the red coins in New Super Mario Bros. and what we have when unlocking consecutively higher tier skills in the same aptitude.

+++Using visual cues and notifications
I think my want here is to move much of the UI into the area the player is looking without getting in the way while also relaying all the above. Unfortunately I don't have much of an idea on what could really work here.
For a starting point maybe have icons representing the different weapon classes like, Missiles, Beams, Point Defence... that the player can choose from to associate with their choice of weapon group; and in combat they would show up around the mouse cursor with things like progress till more ammo, current ammo and percentage online and offline in addition to flux, hull and armour.

+++Screen-wide indicators
Things like the flux level should always be in the area the player is looking but don't have to be a bar. A shimmering static like effect to the whole screen that really becomes noticeable at high flux like 75% and picks right up by 90%. And with energy weapon mastery, maybe some things become more contrasted or brighter with higher flux levels to indicate the greater damage bonus. Even the 'Fortress shield' could benefit with a purple hexagonal effect or something...

+++Direction
Effect: Add vector arrows for the controlled ship
Owing to lack of reference points at times makes discerning direction a bit of a challenge; sometimes making me wonder if I'm even moving. If we could get vector arrows for our controlled ship in combat like we see at the command screen, it would be a huge help. But please don't show us the enemies' direction arrows.

+++Acceleration/Engine state
Effect: Shows current maximum acceleration or equivalent
Reason: Nice to have
[close]

Officers
Spoiler
+Influenced by the ships and weapons they must use.
Reason: Makes a bit of sense

+Team roster
Effect: Allows as many officers as the player wants and any can be chosen to command a ship at any time in the overworld but the more officers in the roster, the higher the base cost of every officer in the team.
Reason: So that you can train multiple officers at the same time to fill the last spot while keeping all those you want.
[close]

Misc
Spoiler
Ship ideas
+Heavily armoured, heavily shielded freighter with forward mounted engines each with their own shield that's relatively quick with good fuel but relatively low cargo capacities compared to other freighters.
Reason: For any train robbing missions of course!

+Variable 'Flux/Damage' shielded ship
With a high starting ratio as more flux fills capacity, flux/damage falls exponentially tending to some value which keeps the level high and extends the regime in which the 'Energy Weapon Mastery' damage bonus can be taken advantage of but makes it extremely susceptible to EMP piercing.

Hard and Soft flux differentiation on shield hits for the player.
Effect: Makes shield hit values that would produce Hard Flux a different colour to indigo (aqua or dark blue?).
Reason: Another way to help players understand what their damage is doing vs shields.

Fleet group compositions
Effect: Allows saving and loading fleets compositions and officered positions
Reason: to take and leave multiple ships instantly
Like autofit on a fleetwide level... Autofleet

Revenant Phase Tender
When fleeing it loves flicking its phase system on and off despite the massive loss in speed without the 'zero flux speed boost' even when there are no enemies or threats. I've noticed this with Ziggy heading to the front lines but it's not too bad there since I don't want it zooming off on its own. Back to the Revenant, if the behaviour can be replaced, I suggest it should only phase to dodge the odd missile or sacrifice itself for the rest.

Arms dealer quests
Spending only peanuts on Hammers to appease the pirates for relations galore is such a bore!
Suggest adding a minimum order requirement or a penalty for tiny orders or no relation bonus.

A wish list
Whether weapons, ships, LPC's or hullmods I would have this tied in to whether salvaging should prompt the recovery menu, highlighting and placing ships above all else or skipping recovery entirely for salvage; and in shops highlight those ones in particular.

Making one handed control more prevalent in the overworld.
Reason: I think this motif should permeate the game as much as possible except for in combat for convenience.
Suggest: Pause/play, fast forward and slow moving toggle buttons would be a nice touch whether as extra UI and/or allowing alternative mouse buttons to do the job like the middle mouse button for the occasions you can't be bothered playing with both hands.

More contact accessability
Effect: Contacts would be contactable from anywhere with a comm relay with high enough relations.
Reason: Nicer that way
If you need the player to touch base, maybe as the relation gets better, require the player to check in less often.

Suggestion for suggestions
Since we can't necro old threads if there were a way to represent the game as a map or network that everyone had access to, I think it would be much easier to go directly to a place and comment to start a thread and would allow people to easily check if their suggestion idea has already been suggested and at which version or even rejected.
[close]
Cheers!

14
Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread
« on: January 13, 2022, 05:18:36 AM »
Not sure on this one...
"..., officers reports,..."

[attachment deleted by admin]

15
General Discussion / How do shield arcs work?
« on: January 12, 2022, 11:24:58 PM »
Can anyone tell me what determines the shield's arc growth rate?
And can anyone tell me how the maximum speed an omni shield's midpoint can be moved at is calculated when the ship is not rotating?
And finally can anyone tell me how much of an omni shield's movement is affected if the ship rotates? It feels like something with friction involved if you rotate with or against the direction the shield mid point wants to move.

Haven't found anything particularly obvious in the ship_data.csv that I can understand.

And found this from a long ago post of Alex's which might be where I can find more info but don't know what I'm looking for. And I don't often look at code.
Spoiler
"Modding-related:

    All hull mods are implemented in a mod-friendly way
    Exposed the following ship properties for modification via scripts:
        max speed, acceleration, deceleration, max turn rate, turn acceleration
        flux capacity, flux dissipation
        hull/armor/shield damage taken multipliers
        energy/ballistic/missile/beam weapon damage dealt multipliers
        shield upkeep, shield absorption, shield turn rate, shield unfold rate, shield arc
        energy/ballistic/missile/beam weapon range bonuses (flat & multipliers)
        armor/hull bonuses (flat & multipliers)
        energy/ballistic/missile ammo bonuses (flat & multipliers)"
[close]
Any help appreciated!

Pages: [1] 2