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 - miljan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
General Discussion / Re: How can I command fighers?
« on: May 04, 2017, 10:12:37 AM »


The thing is we cant even control fighters like missles or other weapons. You cant aim individual fighters where and when to fight.

Cant aim turrets or guided  missles either, except in the most general sense. These weapons make their own decisions based on your relative positioning to the enemy and which targets are closer, same as fighters. There's room to fine tune this with fighters, but they shouldn't be considered separate craft.

I ask again, which storefront are fighters sold in? They aren't ships and shouldn't be treated as such.
Yes, you can aim turets and guided missles manually. They can be consider seperated crarft as they where before with some fine tuning, nothing wrong with that. What storefront its sold on doesnt matter at all.


If you do not like micromanagement of your fighters no one is forcing you to play it and you can just ignore those options that always where there, but if I want, and if I have fun playing it that way its not a option anymore as it was removed from the game and nothing was made to replace it.

Ah, to a certain extent they're mutually exclusive, though.  I don't want to speak for Alex, but in terms of observing the game it seems clear the game wants to keep the necessity of that layer to a minimum. If carriers and fighters can perform well enough most of the time without it, then theres no need for micro controls.  If micro controls are still *needed* enough to justify a tactical layer function for them to correct a meaningful weakness in fighter behavior, then babysitting fighters will still be necessary, and Ill have to keep pausing my game to keep track of what they're doing.

They are not  mutually exclusive. In fact putting tactice control behind new skills fix this suoperficual problem that you have, making a play style of mroe micro intensvie battles wiht your fighters possible and not removing it totaly.


Also using tactics and maneuvers to  bypass flak can never be a exploit but smart use of fighters and tactics, the same way flanking with a ship can not be consider a exploit, because, i mean.. the whole game is a exploit than  :D.

Sure it is. How "smart" do you have to be to use a cheat against the AI, that the AI isnt capable of using itself?

The opposing ship has paid its loadout points for strong PD capability. It *should* be resistant to fighters.  You either make a similar investment in  anti-PD fighters (broadswords, etc), or a decision on the deployment screen to deploy other ships capable of taking that target down, then use those ships to attack that target during battle. Using Micro controls that the* AI cant use*, in order to allow a ship that shouldn't be able to overcome another to bypass the decision making on the loadout and deployment screens, is bypassing the design.

You can tell where the game wants the most decision making to be done, by how developed those portions are.  Tons of decisions on the refit page. Lots of strategy derived from player skill in the real time combat phase. Very few, and only the most necessary options on the tactical layer.  It's not where the game wants you making most of your decisions.
[/quote]

Ai is not cable of a lot o things.  Blaming bad Ai and comparing it to cheating because we play better than him is I dont know how to say it, just wrong. In fact Ai should be programed to do the same things we do as best as possible.

The game is not telling you anything, it had a very detail tactical control of fighters before and it was dumbed down, and whole playstyle was almost removed, and I will not sit and pretend its something positive and defend bad decisions from the developer of the game. He can want to make maybe a text adventure and remove all the features of fighting, its his game and in the end he will do what he wants but be sure I will not be sitting here and defending things that I dont like.  Removing/dumbing down one play style is a bad thing for the game and for the diversity of options it offers and in the end for his customers like me that dont like it.


2
General Discussion / Re: How can I command fighers?
« on: May 03, 2017, 10:29:58 AM »
Wut?
Think he means weapon groups, but in this case Fighter groups.

Ah. Well, that's not analogous, then. Fighters are autonomous weapons like missiles. Should we have to micromanage missles too? They dont always go exactly where we want, after all. Beam turrets dont always aim at exactly the ship we want.  It's important to stop thinking of fighters as separate craft. They're sold in the weapons menu, not the ship menu.

The soon to be fixed behavioral bug aside, the elimination for the *necessity* of specific tactical commands in a non tactical focused game should not be seen as a "dumbing down" of the game. Quite the opposite. Each of those tactical commands represents a weakness in decision making ability of the AI that the human has to manually compensate for.  If they can be eliminated because the AI makes good enough decisions *most of the time* to be successful without the crutch of micromanagement, it represents an increase in intelligence of the AI and design. If the fighters can be made to reliably target the the target of the cruiser, without the cruiser subjecting itself to unreasonable danger, that should be good enough to eliminate the need for specific fighter commands.

The necessity for babysitting fighters beyond that would frankly be unwelcome, and some of the uses for micromanagement I've heard described here--for instance using direct micro control to bypass flak weapons--sounds like an exploit.

The thing is we cant even control fighters like missles or other weapons. You cant aim individual fighters where and when to fight.
Removing this  control as a option from the game is the most simple example of dumbing down the game as it removes one additional option and play style from the game and doesnt put anything in its place that was not already there. It can never be "Quite the opposite" because the alternative of leaving AI play it for you was always there, no matter is controlling fighter in the game or not. If you do not like micromanagement of your fighters no one is forcing you to play it and you can just ignore those options that always where there, but if I want, and if I have fun playing it that way its not a option anymore as it was removed from the game and nothing was made to replace it.

Also using tactics and maneuvers to  bypass flak can never be a exploit but smart use of fighters and tactics, the same way flanking with a ship can not be consider a exploit, because, i mean.. the whole game is a exploit than  :D.

3
General Discussion / Re: How can I command fighers?
« on: May 02, 2017, 11:10:18 AM »


Bad Ai is when computer does random crap when playing and when I cannot guide him to do what I want. If i can play fleet level tactical sim with other ships, I expect to have same control and AI of carriers, and not for them to be *** because of some balance thing. As said bad AI should be never considered as a balance thing in games like this. And no , AI of carriers is not good in any way or form. Or better said AI of fighters


You *do* have the same level of control over carriers as other ships. You can issue them the exact same commands, and they will obey them. Probably not a good idea to order a ship with weaker weapons/armor to directly attack a more powerful one on its own.

 What you *dont* have is micro control over their fighters, because Alex apparently wants them to be more of a Damage over Time Aura now to offset their power, more than discrete craft of their own to command separately. Why should you get 4 separate craft to control for the price of one?

As for Carriers being an offensive term for someone with a developmental disability, my experience and yours differs wildly. I just played an all carrier game with "cautious" or "steady" officers in my carriers, escorted when necessary, and they never did what you describe. They were mostly hassle free hanging back out of trouble, and they kicked all kinds of ass. Fighters no longer *need* micromanagement to be effective, and I rather think thats a step up in the design, rather than a dumbing down. I dont want to have to manage my fighter wings while Im concentrating on the action.

If you had problems with your carriers, you may need to examine your strategy for using them.

As said by alex the thing that happened is a bug that hopefully will get fixed that so often happens when playing with carriers all the time. You should get 4 seperate crafts to control the same way you can control the fire arcs of your weapons. In fact that there is really no good reason for removing the micro of fighters as a option. It can be tied to skill or some other way. Just a note i play only carriers fleets (only fighters and nothing else) this version. Removing features form the game like control of your fighters is dumbing down of that part of the game and forcing it on all players. Fighters need micro to be as effective as before the patch as their AI is not close to what is needed. Removing additional option from the game is never a step in a design. And having micro options will not force you to micro it in any way or form, if the Ai is good for you, but for people that its not, that option will always be helpful. But this additional options is a must for people like me.

No I dont need to examine strategy, i just need to see what is removed from the game to understand where the problem is.

4
General Discussion / Re: How can I command fighers?
« on: May 01, 2017, 01:55:59 PM »
Well, "lack of controls" depends on whether you think you're playing a primarily action oriented combat sim, or a fleet level tactical sim. It's possible that the game you think you're playing is not the game Alex is making.

As far as "bad AI", I disagree, and think that the AI for carriers is pretty good, in that you can mostly leave them alone and wait for them to win the battle for you.  They dont need too much babysitting as long as you dont issue them stupid orders, which is what I want out of a ship AI.

As far as balance, carriers *should* be powerful, but they should also be much more vulnerable then they are now, requiring heavy escort. They should definitely be a ship the enemy AI prioritizes. I personally think that carriers of human piloted strike craft are an anachronism in a sci fi setting, but if youre going to use the concept then carriers are something that need escort because they are vulnerable to a number of threats without it. In the game at present, there are no real threats the carriers are particularly vulnerable to that cant be solved with their fighter bays.
And its possible to have both in the game and not force it one way or another by removing features from the game or dumbing it more down.

Bad Ai is when computer does random crap when playing and when I cannot guide him to do what I want. If i can play fleet level tactical sim with other ships, I expect to have same control and AI of carriers, and not for them to be *** because of some balance thing. As said bad AI should be never considered as a balance thing in games like this. And no , AI of carriers is not good in any way or form. Or better said AI of fighters

5
General Discussion / Re: How can I command fighers?
« on: May 01, 2017, 01:26:17 PM »
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters.  Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.

Don't see why we couldn't have both.  All ships should operate reasonably well without orders, but also abide by ones we issue if we decide their worth the command points (which imho they absolutely are).

With as powerful as fighters are in the current version, I can't help but think that raw power combined with that level of tactial micro in the players hands would give you too much advantage. Why would anyone ever use something other than a carrier when they have that much control over their lethal wings?  The lack of of the ability to micro/focus the fighter squadrons is the only reason to use a non carrier in the present version, IMO. Carriers are that good now, they actually need to have "one arm tied behind their back".

And that arm should never be bad AI or lack of controls for your cariers, but more balance of dmg and similar. Never put bad AI to balance something out, as that doesnt fix anything just makes more problems

6
General Discussion / Is some of new content locked behind new skills?
« on: April 28, 2017, 01:52:02 AM »
I am interesting in fighting those drone things, and the station. But cant find them. Do I need to invest in some of the industry skill to get a better chance at getting them?

7
Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: August 26, 2016, 11:53:08 AM »
So simply put, this is a huge nerf to fighters that where already somewhat problematic, and at the same time nerf to carrier as you now need to use ordnance points to put fighters on them? Are the fighter getting any buff as we will have a lot less of them as they are tide directly to number of carriers?

The biggest problem is removing options of direct control, and literally killing another play style of carrier/fighter only fleets. Horrible change.

8
General Discussion / Re: Ships now break apart!
« on: August 07, 2016, 01:33:41 PM »
Ok, didnt read the whole thread yet, but I *** love this. The only thing I am worried, is will this have any negative impact on performance for crappy laptops?

9
General Discussion / Re: In-battle CR Timer - Why It's Bad
« on: July 14, 2016, 06:15:50 AM »
  In almost every single (well designed) game you have a limiter. It can be ammo (any fps), fuel (any sim game), stamina (any combat/rpg game), morale (tactical games) or indeed an arbitrary timer (any arcade game), it can be a reinforcement system to prevent the battles from dragging on (any 4X or RTS), or it is improbable for a stalemate to occur (no impenetrable defense, forced pace, anti-kiting teleportation...).

   So saying that CR is too abstract or that it is too harsh are legitimate concerns. Or that you preferred the old principle of ballistic/limited ammo VS energy/low range. But saying it is "extremely bad designed" because it is "putting arbitrary time limit" just isn't true.

   Had it been implemented as "Reactor Heat Build-up" instead, your ship systems starting to go haywire once the power-plant's temperature pass the red line to the point the hull is taking damage from self-cooking, everyone would have intuitively understood and accepted that mechanic.

You have limitation, but most of games dont have time limitations. Most FPS games have plenty of ammo and weapons that have unlimited ammo also. ARPG games have unlimited stamina, that regenerates slowly if you wait. Not sure about any arcade game, as again most game do not have any type of timers. Because there are better ways of "limiting" your game than a timer.

No, CR is not that abstract to me  or too harsh, its simply an extremely bad and cheap design that most games don't use. And for a good reason. "Reactor Heat Build-up" would not change the fact that you have timed limit on your battle. Its juts fluff, and it would still be a problem, except if it was from beginning, I would not bough the game in the first place, as I dont like time limits and other similar bad/cheap mechanics in my games.

10
General Discussion / Re: In-battle CR Timer - Why It's Bad
« on: July 14, 2016, 02:15:40 AM »
CR was one of the worst additions to the game. I have two separated problems. One is CR on campaign map. It doesnt add anything, and just slows the game down. This may change in future as developer adds some thing to do more than just fight, but in its current state the combat is the main thing of the game, and CR doesnt add anything to it. The old version of supplies was several times better than what we have now, for the current version of the game.

But the biggest problem I have with the game, and hate this change, is putting arbitrary time limit  in my game battles. This is extremely bad designed, as developer doesnt know how to fix the problem of bad AI and players kitting them. My suggestion for this is to have a soft limit, so you ship doesnt stop function after some time, but maybe  lose the max speed so you can not run away anymore, but juts putting a time limit on my battles after witch my ships starts to malfunction is a horrible thing.

11
Blog Posts / Re: Economy Revamp
« on: May 05, 2016, 04:12:45 AM »
How big of negative impact will this have on people that dont have that good PC? I read that on dev computer it was ok, but I am more worried about my *** comp.

12
General Discussion / Re: 4 years....
« on: May 05, 2016, 04:09:57 AM »

(Regarding the "hiring a small team" bit, that... well, it wouldn't work for a large number of reasons. I feel like this has come up before, but here's a quick list: 1) not nearly enough money, 2) can't just find good people with a similar vision quickly, which ties into #1 and makes things take longer, 3) it's a creative endeavor and throwing more bodies at the problem is more likely to hurt than help in terms of overall quality, even if - and that's a big if - that helps it reach a "finished" state more quickly.)



This is really a shame. Maybe when you release on steam (if you gonna release in early access at some point) you may get more income to hire another programer to help you out. Generally I agree with OP, that development is going extremely slow and that is not exactly a good thing.

13
Discussions / Re: Homeworld - Deserts of Kharak
« on: February 05, 2016, 11:49:07 AM »
I am disappointed with the game. Its to expensive for how little it offers. And is full of small bugs or graphic glitches, and lack some basic things like save options in skirmish or any options for maps (you can not even set to have 3 teams).

14
Mods / Re: [0.7.1a] Scy V0.98D Nexerelin compatible again. (21/12/2015)
« on: December 31, 2015, 06:56:28 AM »
This is a very impressive mod, just started playing it. Are there any similar mods that add animations and destructible parts to ships?

15
Mods / Re: [0.7.1a] Starsector+ 3.1.2
« on: December 31, 2015, 06:46:42 AM »
I can start and run starsector+ with other 9 factions recommended here at the same time (i thought i would not be able on my 7 years old crap top , and even didnt change anything in java setting for more memory). So i have been playing it for one hours, still on beginning, but will there maybe be any problems later in campaign, does the game get more resource intensive later or if i can run it now, there should not be problems in late game (playing it without Nexerelin and with LazyLib effects disabled)?

I must say I am surprised that i could run starsector+ and Nexerelin without problems (and finish the game), so now I am trying to run with all this factions, but without the Nexerelin, but fear that maybe later when i invest more time something will break.

For people that wonder, this is crap top i have:
MSI CR500
4gb ram
geforce 8200mG (this was even  *** back in 2008)
pentium dual core t4500 2.30 GHz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7