Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

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 - Gaizokubanou

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:40:03 PM »
Am I the only one who actually just wants to get my hands on this new changes to see how things play out?  We can theorize designs and mechanics all day but whatever ideas and visions one may had in mind, so little of it survives actual testing.

I'm just excited that it's a big change.  At the very least it'll be interesting to perhaps mix it up (but again, without actually trying it who knows, maybe it'll be largely unchanged).

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:17:27 AM »
So it is bad, very bad. And if dev thought process is like this, I do not know what future arbitrary limitation will come if he can not balance some other mechanics.

But all games are all about arbitrary limitations that are presented in form of ruleset.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: December 04, 2014, 07:14:47 PM »
Maybe I'm a minority here but I'm totally looking forward to removal of ammo counter for many weapons.  These balance changes look really interesting overall.

General Discussion / Re: Why do fighters have pilots?
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:22:17 PM »
Nothing other than access to resources and technology.

So you just have to raid wherever the Tri-Tachyon corporation keeps their precious scientists and documents regarding "autonomous alpha+ level AI", take those and force them to work for you. All of this because your fighter's crew needs supplies, takes up more room than a processor and doesn't perform as well as a machine?

If you can just raid in and steal bunch of high tech equipment and research personal, I think that speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the tools at your disposal, or sheer incompetency of the raided faction.

But besides that point, yes.  Why are you stating that as if it's something really strange and bizarre besides the two above mentioned points?

And it's not like competent auto pilot is something that is THAT advanced anyway that only the most advanced tech group would have it at the point which Starsector universe is in.  It is so much more likely that we are going to hit the auto-pilot ceiling (the point at which extra 'thinking' doesn't really help at all because of hard line limitations of the craft and weapons interact in battlefield) long before the types of technology shown in Starsector becomes as widespread as it is in the lore.

General Discussion / Re: Why do fighters have pilots?
« on: November 12, 2014, 06:51:16 PM »
What stops your enemy from doing the same? You'd end up with fleets of equal skill that would always reach a stalemate unless you make them extremely advanced to the point where only humanity loses and if the self aware AI fleet didn't get you, an extremely angry Hegemony fleet officer will.

Nothing other than access to resources and technology.

And I think Cromodus has a good point in that the controlling computer for a fighter craft probably will never have to become some form of sentient super AI, unless the most advanced and efficient technology of the given lore demands that the performance of the craft scales with controller's intelligence.  At which point the idea of having normal pilots (ones that are swappable with regular crews) is also odd.

General Discussion / Re: Why do fighters have pilots?
« on: November 12, 2014, 04:04:43 PM »
AI and Drones are not the same thing.
AI is something that can calculate and think.
Drone is an unmanned device for performing tasks.

Not in the same category of things.

Ok... kinda weird seeing this as reply to my post since I explicitly mentioned similar considerations :P

Quote from: Cromodus
To me, it's still simpler AND cheaper to develop a solid auto-pilot that is an unpredictable, independant flying ace and copy/paste it to every fighter in the fleet than it is to: Spend years training new pilots, drug them, augment them with cybernetic implants, build them a ship with a cockpit, lifesupport system and inertial dampers or whatever else you want to add.

This is probably the case.  I can't imagine a grounded scenario in which simple, fast program (good computer but not an AI) dealing with all known combat doctrines being topped off by super intelligence by any value of importance.

The strongest and most definitive limitations would likely be the hardware's capability, not how well it is controlled.

Unless the lore explicitly deals with how the tech is so control reliant on their limitation (like either the craft itself has capability that requires extremely fine on-the-fly adjustments to keep at peak performance OR combat doctrines are so complex that no simple machine can ever execute without coming off as too predictable) but that doesn't seem to be the case here?

Or maybe they are all already equipped with auto-pilot and the pilot is there to just take that extra step ahead of the unmanned craft?  But even so it's probably more space efficient to just stack even more auto-pilot controller in the place of a pilot.

General Discussion / Re: Lack of Game Publicity?
« on: November 12, 2014, 03:54:30 PM »
Would it surprise you if TB were lurking around once in a while and kept tabs of its progress? Because, I doubt he would be that interested to make a second video for another update patch. Then again, those days were before he became busy with the big game titles (I think?).

Him doing 3 videos on a single game (post his WoW coverage era) would be highly unusual regardless of the game.

People like him are getting so many requests that he's trying to do a format of covering 2~3 indie games per video.

Only thing I would like and could expect to see is him changing the name of his video since the game's name changed, but anything more than that out of TB would be incredibly generous on his end and super lucky for Alex considering the crazy number of releases we are seeing these days on top of his recovery from cancer.

General Discussion / Re: Why do fighters have pilots?
« on: November 12, 2014, 02:44:08 AM »
Slightly veering off topic but if an AI isn't truly intelligent (sentience and all that), it can probably be exploited by trans-human pilots (unless the combat doctrine is very simple and is purely a match of precise repetition and reaction time).

And if the AI was truly intelligent, then the idea of using such AI as throwaway brain instead of humans could be absurd because why the heck would they cooperate with you to go on the highest risk missions?  Unless it's at a gunpoint, at which you can pretty much do the same with human pilots?  You know the whole "machines-overthrow-human" genre is very much about this aspect yet when it comes to tactical aspects many seem to be way too eager to make something that's far superior than you and hope that it follows your orders while holding all the weapons.

If there is no AI and it's just drones then those are probably vulnerable to jammers and whatnot.

General Discussion / Re: UI is way too obtuse
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:49:32 PM »
One new interface that caught me off guard for a bit was the new store page.  After using it a bit having buy/sell, categories and open/military/blackmarket being 'tab-like' makes sense, but for the first few times it just felt very awkward to read and navigate.

I think the store front being more of a list than grid inventory (even if it's less space efficient, I'm just so dang used to viewing purchasing options in a list thanks to years of real web store usage) might make it look more natural as a store but that's whole new set of UI so it's probably not worth it this early.  But I do hope you would take it as a consideration Alex :)

General Discussion / Re: Combat readyness poll.
« on: October 14, 2013, 08:01:50 AM »
No particular feeling about it as a whole because it's suppose to a system that ties various elements of the game together, half or more (all the non-combat stuff) of which are missing.

General Discussion / Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« on: October 05, 2013, 05:18:22 PM »
I really dislike how low CR can just completely disable your ships thus far.

Suggestions / Re: [Mechanic] Fleet Coherence
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:33:44 AM »
I'd rather the game reward you for using what you can get, rather than reward you for using only a specific type of ship.

I second this.

Why?  Some explanation for this would be nice.  Using what you can get is essentially a reward in itself because you're gaining an immediate advantage; using something you got.  Committing to a tech line is harder to do, and imposes weaknesses upon you.  That's worth rewarding.

IDK why BillyRueben think this way, but the reason I do is because the simplicity that you talk about is the beauty of it.  I just don't see the appeal in neutering good min-max decisions (picking best ships to do the jobs that your fleet needs) by rewarding a decision that's more based on roleplaying (matching ship themes) than anything.  And as far as adding depth goes, I prefer attaining depth through balancing of simple ruleset than adding more to the ruleset.  An extreme example of this area would be Paradox Interactive.  Their games have this really complex (relatively speaking off course) ruleset that puts off lot of newcomers, but once you get used to them you realize that vast majority of the rules don't offer any real choice, but rather, turn into just mindless chores that you go through to get to the interesting bits.

I also don't see the intuitive side to this, because it's like arguing that if I were to have 4 Ford cars in my garage, my Ford Fusion should get better gas mileage or something.

I see an argument for higher CR regen/cap based on ship type consistency, because your ships share more parts and whatnot along the line of what Debido posted.  But I don't like the idea of adding a whole another extra stat just to pull that off.

9 supplies/day for a wasp wing, ouch! That's more than for a dominator.

That's kinda odd, it's half of my fleet's supplies/day lol

Blog Posts / Re: Combat sound effects in 0.6a
« on: September 14, 2013, 10:07:36 AM »
I really enjoy the new sound effects.  They have more 'oomph' to them.

More I play 0.6, more I like it.  At first I thought supply was draining fast but now it feels about right, although I'm not sure what exactly changed since my fleet only got bigger.

It was awkward to get used to for first hour or so though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24