Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


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 - Aeson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
Suggestions / Re: Why is Restore Expensive?
« on: December 08, 2020, 12:55:43 PM »
Regarding cost of repair: Sure, relatively minor repairs are generally more economical than replacing a vehicle in reality, but D-mods are meant to represent particularly severe damage - significant weakening of major structural elements, major faults in the electrical system throughout the ship that can't really be fixed without more or less completely replacing the entire electrical system, engine damage of a sort that cannot be fixed except by completely replacing the engines, that sort of thing. This is the sort of damage that in the real world gets vehicles written off as not worth the cost of repair because the cost and effort required to do the repairs start to approach or even exceed that of a new vehicle, and if a vehicle with such damage does get repaired it's usually not fully repaired, just patched up enough to give adequate service until it can be replaced.

I am however somewhat inclined to agree with FooF that restoration costs should probably not scale linearly with the number of D-mods being removed.

Blog Posts / Re: Raiding for Fun and Profit
« on: January 10, 2020, 09:55:44 AM »
If you do eventually decide to bring back crew experience, one thing you might consider doing is having high crew experience boost Peak Performance Time. It'd probably be a useful-enough bonus to be worthwhile but not so important as to make low crew experience crippling, and it'd affect combat performance in sufficiently-long battles without essentially being an alternate Combat Readiness stat or creating the supply-side issues of directly modifying maximum combat readiness.

General Discussion / Re: Alex's tweet [18/12/21]
« on: December 22, 2018, 01:15:18 PM »
Alright, I see the resemblance now.

Edit: The "launch bay" on the atlas is a large missile slot i think. It looks almost directly stolen from a Gryphon
I could see it being a Squall or something like that, sure.

General Discussion / Re: Alex's tweet [18/12/21]
« on: December 22, 2018, 11:58:57 AM »
Quote from: The Soldier
It looks like an oddly lopsided low-tech ship, judging from the armor plates on the sides looking like those from the Onslaught.  Wouldn't say it's an upscaled Falcon.
Coloration of the armor plate looks more midline to me, though it's a bit hard to say with the noise on the image. Still, the visible armament fits with low-tech.

Quote from: Angry About Elves
That is absolutely a Prometheus with a bunch of armor bolted to the sides, the lumpy orange bow gives it away.
Quote from: Tartiflette
Plus it has the Prometheus round front and the same overall hull style.
I don't see the resemblance. There's a hard straight line on the left side of the "lumpy orange bow" that simply isn't there on the Prometheus, the Prometheus tank body is more of a red than an orange color, and, while it might just be the image quality, the orange bit doesn't seem to have features consistent with the Prometheus tank body.

I agree that the other one's definitely an Atlas conversion, though. Looks like maybe a Hephaestus, a pair of Heavy Autocannons, and a launch bay on it.

General Discussion / Re: Alex's tweet [18/12/21]
« on: December 22, 2018, 10:44:51 AM »
Looks like a Talon and a Broadsword flying past a new capital ship of some sort, perhaps something a bit like an upscaled Falcon if the orange bit in the center is the bright side of a planet 'below' the ship rather than part of its hull. I see a Mark IX Autocannon, a Hellbore, two Heavy Autocannons, and three Vulcans.

Ships can move in more directions relative to their normal frame of reference than just "forwards" and "backwards." Is there a range of maximum speeds dependent upon how close the ship is to moving directly forwards or directly backwards? Is there an arbitrary range of directions relative to the ship's normal frame of reference such that movement in a direction within the range is considered to be "forwards" while movement in a direction outside of that range is considered "backwards," with or without some additional range of directions for a transition between maximum speeds? How is purely-lateral movement affected by differing "forwards" and "backwards" maximum speeds? If I'm coasting forwards and rotate my ship to bring forward-arc weapons to bear on a ship following "behind" me relative to my direction of travel, do I lose speed if I'm above the maximum "reverse" speed? How about if I'm not at the maximum "reverse" speed?

Implementing distinct maximum speeds for forwards and backwards movement is not as simple as just slapping in a new speed attribute for the ships, and the current system is in my opinion good enough as is.

(this is also why weapons have maximum ranges)
Weapons could have maximum ranges to represent that not all weapons necessarily have the same maximum effective range in space even if theoretical maximum range for unpowered projectile weapons is effectively infinite.

Factors which can realistically limit maximum effective range include but are not limited to sensor accuracy in determining bearing, range, and velocity information on the target, turret rotation and elevation speeds and accelerations, beam spread for laser-type weapons, recoil-related issues for dumbfire projectiles, powered flight envelopes for guided or homing munitions, and target-motion prediction accuracy limits.

General Discussion / Re: [Guide] Officer Skill Builds
« on: November 12, 2018, 03:47:26 PM »
Always stoked to read more theorycraft. Yep, I assumed Evasive Action to be better purely because 50% to DR has been proven so powerful in the past (along with the 50% opposite from Target Analysis). Happy to be proven wrong, but yes as others have said.. pick both armour skills. The 50% maneuverability buff should not be discounted as that's pretty useful on its own, but it's more of an utility-class bonus, like Ordnance Expertise's projectile speed.
It's harder to quantify than a direct damage mitigation bonus and is a bit dependent upon what ship you're flying, but I would say that a maneuverability bonus is, or at least can be, a very powerful defensive bonus for most ships. Being able to turn more rapidly makes it easier to interpose a front shield or in some cases an omni shield between the ship and an incoming attack, bring the greatest possible number of PD weapons to bear against missiles or fighters, take a hit on relatively undamaged armor instead of in an area where the armor's almost completely gone, or even avoid an incoming shot completely just by rotating the ship without changing course or speed. It might be more useful for the player than for the player's officers and quantifying how much of an effect it has would be a lot more involved than putting a number to a direct damage mitigation bonus (especially as it's not necessarily equally beneficial to all ships or equally effective against all weapons), but that doesn't mean that it's not a powerful defensive bonus.

Suggestions / Re: Generate fuel from a star's corona
« on: August 20, 2017, 02:28:26 PM »
There is no way a big fleet could make a 48 year journey and secure enough fuel for it via piracy (in basically empty space!) along the way. It's more plausible that they had some reliable but slow way to replenish their antimatter reserves, and that much of the 48 years wasn't actual travel time, but time spent using that method.
There could be high-efficiency longhaul hyperdrives, which are too slow to bother the player with but have significantly better fuel economy. Tankers, especially large tankers, might hold considerably more fuel in lore than they do in gameplay. There could be a way to cut off fuel feed to the hyperdrive and simply allow the ship to drift to the nearest massive body, which would be painfully slow but could reduce fuel consumption by up to ~50% if the stars are aligned nicely (granted, that's rather unlikely). The fleet could have been hitting places like Askonia and extorting large quantities of fuel along the way. The Domain might even have had supply depots set up in relatively remote areas just in case a fleet passing through ever needed anything, which might not have been sufficient for the entire battle group but could perhaps have been enough to let it scrape by after supplementing the resources through piracy. There are a lot of possible explanations that aren't "the fleet had a mobile antimatter fuel generator."

That being said, I do not particularly oppose having another way of obtaining fuel once you run out. I don't think sitting over a star and trading supplies/CR for fuel would be particularly interesting, however. I also feel like it'd be strange for the equipment for AM fuel production centers to be rare within the sector and yet so common that it can be found (albeit perhaps not in an economically-viable form) on any of the ships that the player might have in their fleet, though of course the game's lore is open to revision and it isn't a big deal to change a few lines of text.

Suggestions / Re: Standard Low tech Cruiser
« on: June 01, 2017, 10:40:41 PM »
Doesn't the Dominator have an insane amount of armour? I would have thought that's why it had the heavy title.
I would expect that the reason that the Dominator has the designation of 'heavy' cruiser is a combination of its armor and its nominal firepower, both of which are approximately half again the average for non-heavy non-light cruisers.

depending on how we interpret Sunder's tech level, either there are 3 combat high-tech destroyers or only 1 low-tech destroyer.
Pretty sure that there's only one low-tech combat destroyer no matter how you interpret the Sunder; with its offensive armament being so heavily focused on modular energy weapons, its flux stats being pretty decent despite its terrible shield efficiency, and its paper-thin armor, I don't think there's any reasonable way to argue that the Sunder's low tech. High tech, midline, or transitional between midline and high tech, sure, but not low tech.

General Discussion / Re: [0.8a][Guide] Armor and You
« on: May 11, 2017, 06:43:23 AM »
If it's at 0, I don't believe that the +150 armor bonus comes into play anymore because there is no damage calculation for armor. At .01 armor, however, it does, or any value >0. Since its for calculation only, there has to be a calculation for it to take effect.
According to the 0.8a patchnotes, the armor value for the purposes of damage reduction calculations no longer drops below 5% of the base armor value, and a post by Alex on the first page of this thread suggests that the "base" armor value used for this computation is what you referred to as the total armor value in the first post of this thread. Presumably, then, there is in fact a damage calculation for armor even when the ship's real armor is at 0.00, though I don't know if it'd take the skill's bonus into account once the real armor is stripped.

Suggestions / Re: Maneuvering Jets
« on: May 05, 2017, 07:41:36 AM »
they cant move ship alone without main thrust so it is logical they cant be activated on engines flameout.
Maneuvering thrusters on a spacecraft should very much be capable of moving the ship without support from the main drive engines. What they're unlikely to be able to do is move (or more accurately accelerate) the ship quickly.

Incidentally, the same can be true of seagoing ships, especially if the maneuvering thrusters are intended to assist with docking in awkward locations.

General Discussion / Re: Ships sell for too little
« on: April 25, 2017, 08:56:29 AM »
D-ships seem like these prices are reasonable, except that their prices should, yes, not go below the value of scrapping it.
I mostly agree with this sentiment, though I'd prefer lightly-degraded vessels to have a sale value which is closer to that of a ship in good condition and only the most seriously degraded ships to have a sale value approximating the scrap value; after all, a Condor with Degraded Armor or something like that is more or less unimpaired. It might even be good to have different D-mods devalue the ship by different amounts, though as different ships are affected to differing degrees by each D-mod that might get too complex to be worth modelling.

General Discussion / Re: Can anyone beat "The Last Hurrah"?
« on: April 24, 2017, 06:13:22 AM »
I haven't beaten it yet, but I've done pretty well loading each Heron with 2x Khopesh Rocket Bombers and 1x Spark Interceptor, 3 Tactical Lasers forward + 1 HVD + PD Lasers in the remaining slots and loading the Conquest with 2x Gauss Cannons + 2x Heavy Maulers on one side and 2x Devastators on the other side, with the energy slots filled with Burst/Heavy Burst PD and the missiles filled with Pilums. I put an ITU on the Conquest and filled the rest of the space with vents and capacitors, but I'm thinking about maybe spending some of the leftover OP on a Converted Hanger + Talon instead. I haven't touched the loadouts of any of the other ships yet. I deployed the two Herons, the Conquest, and a Vigilance for the starting fleet.

Blog Posts / Re: Building Better Worlds
« on: February 22, 2017, 07:42:23 PM »
On 'forgetting' - I think it depends on the timescales involved and how data is stored. Were Onslaughts first constructed a few thousand years earlier, or a few hundred? There is debate on whether electronic records are good or bad for data retention - at present they are very bad, as the rapid tech progress and formatting changes make actually reading data on a drive from just 30 years possible only by specialists. Then again, if technology "settled down" in the Domain, then perhaps they have been using the same data format for thousands of years and the only problem is the physical degradation of media.
Modern electronic storage media tends to have a life expectancy of around 20 years. There's some specialized stuff that at least theoretically has a much longer life expectancy and it's sometimes possible to retrieve data from a device which has failed, but 20 years is more or less the upper bound for what you should expect out of modern electronic data storage media.

Also, I'd regard it as likely that a lot of information was lost in the Collapse and in the chaos following it, especially if the Domain had some form of interplanetary/interstellar internet which allowed records to be accessed relatively easily even on planets or in systems which did not host an archive with copies of that information. Even if the Domain didn't have an interstellar internet, local archives, especially in regions which are just being set up, will likely only have information which is (expected to be) accessed relatively frequently, because that's cheaper and is probably adequate for the vast majority of local information requests.1 The problem with such a system, of course, is that it relies on the presence of a functional network. If the network breaks down, whether because the connections between nodes are broken or because one or more nodes become damaged, information can be lost, at least locally; the more severe the damage to the nodes and the more nodes which are damaged, the more likely it is for the information loss to be permanent and universal rather than temporary and local. Even if the information survives, it can still be lost if knowledge of the existence or location of the information is lost.

One last thing I'd add is that it's very possible for a technologically-advanced civilization to 'forget' something even if accurate records of the thing in question exist and are accessible by people within that civilization. Consider the internet - the more you know about a subject, the easier it is to look up information about that subject, but the converse - that the less you know about a subject, the harder it is to look up information about it - is also generally true, especially if there isn't much information on the subject available to the general public or if the information on the subject is largely in the form of obscure academic papers with opaque titles, and for many subjects there is also a lot of garbage floating around obscuring the accurate information. Also consider websites which have gone defunct, and consider whether or not it's easy to retrieve information from those websites.

1Before anyone brings up the internet as a counterpoint, be aware that this is how the internet works. Most data centers do not have copies of anything like "all" of the information available on the internet; instead, they have copies of the information which is, or "recently" was, most frequently accessed in the local region (note that, especially at larger data centers, the frequency with which the information needs to be accessed in order for the center to keep a local copy is not necessarily very high), and many of them also store a bit of information which is infrequently accessed anywhere in the world. While not all data is stored at all data centers, no information is unique to any one data center, at least in theory (theory and practice may not be in perfect agreement given the enormous volume of information on the internet, the rate at which new information is generated, the limits on what people will spend to back up data, and the limits on how much bandwidth is available). When you enter a query (be that a URL or a search term) in a web browser, your query is passed to the nearest data centers, which search their repositories for information pertaining to your query. If they do not find information pertaining to your query in their repositories, the query gets passed on to more distant data centers, which search their repositories, etc, etc, until the system finds what it thinks you're looking for or runs out of places to look.

Discussions / Re: US Navy Finally Decommissions "The Big E"
« on: February 05, 2017, 09:45:11 PM »
eight reactors, what for
Enterprise had eight reactors more or less because conventionally-powered US aircraft carriers of the period used eight boilers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27