Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Of Slipstreams and Sensor Ghosts (09/24/21)

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 - VerifiedN

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Discussion / Re: What player group is this game aimed at?
« on: December 24, 2013, 04:03:03 AM »
I agree that it's more of a tutorial than difficulty problem.

Though that said, some difficulty settings on starting a new game wouldn't go amiss (such as the option to toggle off some mechanics; malfunctions or ships being not combat ready at very low CR for example).

2
Suggestions / Re: Thoughts on Logistics.
« on: December 06, 2013, 03:55:52 PM »
Honestly the current system is rather good aside from the "ships magically fall apart in a week" and "consume hundreds of supply above your supposed maximum usage" parts.

3
General Discussion / Re: Officers: Are They Going to be Immortal?
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:20:38 AM »
An Officer would obviously have access to a priority escape route, being at more or less at the nerve centre of a ship. The chance to lose them should be significant, but not so far that it happens too often and makes improving them pointless. 15% loss chance? Of course modified by the traits of that officer; a highly aggressive captain would be a bit more likely to go down with the ship than a cautious one, for example.

4
I'd suggest getting a pair of Gemini. They're great little freighters with two medium ballistic turrets, a medium missile hardpoint, decent efficiency/angle omni shields, point defence drones (ship system) AND a flight deck. On top of that, they're cheap to maintain and drop only 15% CR when deployed. And, more importantly, they're quick - especially when you have the travel speed skill as they count as destroyers.


5
General Discussion / Re: Ongoing Playablity
« on: November 06, 2013, 05:09:50 AM »
I'd suggest you try out the Exerelin mod. Your purpose then becomes to achieve dominance over the sector for your chosen faction (you are effectively the leader). The mod adds randomly generated systems, dynamic warfare and a tiny bit of industry (mining). It's compatible with a bunch of other mods to spice things up as well.

6
Suggestions / Re: No fighters in Hyperspace battles
« on: November 03, 2013, 11:03:01 AM »
Fleets with fighters but no carriers being unable to use hyperspace doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a realism/believability standpoint.

When a ship's cargo/fuel is overloaded, it's my understanding that the excess (that cannot be stuffed into other internal spaces) is 'strapped' onto the hull. There's little reason the same can't be done with fighters.

7
General Discussion / Re: Late for haloween, but i present the ghost ship!
« on: November 02, 2013, 02:12:30 AM »
[whysoserious]I'd bet if the game showed decimals for flux/hull, we'd see it actually has something like 0.4 left. Maybe a little more depending on the truncation (rounded / dropped decimal)?[/whysoserious]

I'd hate to be a crew-member on THAT ship. Mr Jones isn't a nice captain, even if you don't mind the tentacle beard.

8
General Discussion / Re: OOS simulation
« on: October 19, 2013, 11:08:11 PM »
I don't know, it might scale well enough.

The current system does help CPU load a great deal, but the amount of memory the game needs (and the amount of processing overhead on that data - increasing simulation step size/rate will do nothing to reduce encounters) will continue growing as more systems are added; something will definitely need to be done about that eventually, especially if it gets anywhere near the 32-bit memory limit.

9
General Discussion / Re: OOS simulation
« on: October 19, 2013, 05:42:25 PM »
The current method will undoubtedly not scale well. Though you can simulate 'inactive' sectors fairly easily by boiling activity down to sparingly processing a numerical fleet type/faction/power/speed/depletion/target entity/position list (and then just randomizing details such as exact fleet status if the sector becomes 'active'). You lose detail there, but nothing noticeable considering it'd only be done for distant sectors the player can't reach quickly (nearby sectors could continue using the current method).

The issue of the hyperspace map becoming overcrowded (and possibly laggy due to that) could be resolved by introducing a distance beyond which other fleets are non-detectable and switch to the list method, and back should their coordinates update to coincide with the player's detection range (at which point they're placed at the edge of that range as close as possible to their listed position).

No idea how difficult that could be to put together, but it's food for thought.

10
General Discussion / Re: Any ideas what 0.7 is going to bring?
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:06:36 PM »
Besides Officers (that feature is a given in the near future), I would hope for the first draft of the economy system.

What that might be like, exactly, I have no idea. Though I'd certainly like it to be kept somewhat abstract similarly to supplies/CR; generic resource goes in, fleets/weapons/ships/supplies come out.

Perhaps a little diplomacy could be introduced with that; bringing resources to a hostile station could give an option to 'abandon' them nearby for a small relations boost.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but that's what I would like to see.

11
General Discussion / Re: Suicidal frigates?
« on: October 15, 2013, 04:50:28 AM »
often when I try to flank with my frigates/destroyers, they will instead manoeuver to stay clumped with me

I'm finding that they just outright force themselves between my flagship and what I'm shooting, and try to stay in the way at all costs. I'm thinking something in the AI is setup backwards.

12
General Discussion / Re: Combat readyness poll.
« on: October 14, 2013, 08:49:50 PM »
For a long time I didn't know the details of what the 'Harry' 'Send Out Salvage Teams' 'Stand Down' options really did in game.  Using 'Stand Down' can, at times, keep you fighting much longer than pursuing an enemy to finish them off.

Ahh, or do you salvage to top off supplies to keep you fighting long-term (at your short-term expense) in the lion's den, so to speak? That's what I like about CR; there's important choices to be made.

13
General Discussion / Re: What 0.6 fleets are you running?
« on: October 13, 2013, 07:35:56 PM »
I'm currently having a lot of success with this fleet set-up (vanilla), using a split Combat/Tech character; level 13 right now.

Sunder: Plasma Cannon, 2x Graviton Beam, 3x Light Assault Gun, 2x Atropos Torpedo Rack. No hull mods. As long as I don't make any serious mistakes and kill off faster ships quickly, I can take on just about anything.

Hyperion: 2x Pulse Laser, 2x Harpoon MRM, 2x Burst PD Laser, Hardened Subsystems hull mod. For interceptor duty in pursuit battles, mopping up what was left in reserve and escaped the main battle.

Atlas: 3x Light Assault Gun. Never sees combat unless something goes very wrong, but it can take out fighter/bomber wings without too much trouble. Usually manages to get away with the Hyperion running interference.

And a whole lot of tugs to get the burn speed up (one more and it'll hit 7).

[attachment deleted by admin]

14
Suggestions / Pre-Battle Strategizing
« on: May 29, 2013, 11:07:51 AM »
As in the ability to, while travelling on the system map, give basic combat instructions to your fleet.

For instance; setting your fighters to hold position until an enemy is spotted. Or having the fleet (or a part of it) move together until an outside influence causes them to break formation. Or having ships retreat automatically if they take significant hull damage, their CR drops beyond a point, or certain vessels have been destroyed (or are in retreat).

There's an awful lot that could be done with such a system, and potential for additional depth between campaign/combat. The first example that comes to mind is better cohesion between your ships; allowing them to fulfil intended roles more reliably. Pretty much giving the AI a hand with figuring out what you want each ship to do.

For balancing reasons there should of course be a significant delay for the 'stratagy' to be propagated through your fleet's command structure, scaling with the size; letting small wolfpack fleets plan quickly while an armada would take some time to hammer out the details.

Though such a system shouldn't be able to do too much to avoid being too powerful. An example of a limiting factor could be to have 'slots' for event/action pairs (which may incidentally give a way to link it into skills by unlocking additional slots). I believe a similar-ish system is used by Dragon Age: Origins to good effect.


This is off the top of my head, apologies if it's a terrible idea or has been brought up before.

15
Suggestions / Re: Ballistic Weapons & Ammunition
« on: March 21, 2013, 03:24:30 AM »
Isn't all this getting a bit complicated?

I think ammunition for ballistic weapons should simply regenerate, but at a very slow rate (1 per sec for PDs, 1 per 3 secs for small, 1 per 8 secs for med, 1 per 20 secs for large?). That'd be balanced by the natural in-combat CR decay and not need any additional penalty. Possibly require zero flux at most.

Reasoning being that ammo-using weapons would come with a very small, self-maintaining autofactory that produces ammo and feeds it directly into the weapon's magazine.

Pages: [1] 2