Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: August 12, 2013, 02:39:50 AM »

I keep checking here weekly like some kind of hopeful ritual. z: )

It's oddly excited me just to know that hyperspace will be implemented like that of Star Control II... I loved that game.  I remember when I picked that up as a teenager from the Washington (original UK, not US) Computer Fair, back when that used to be a thing (before we had Ebuyer and Steam)  having only previously played the original game on the Sega Megadrive (aka Genesis.)  Running on my 386, it completely blew my mind and along with analogue-joystick using flight/spaceflight sim games firmly convinced me of the superiority of PC gaming.  I always thought there should be more like SC2 and there just never was. 

Now I'm watching the development of a new game with superior technology and even more elements that I like.  It's been worth the wait. 

Though now I might have to go and find The Ur-Quan Masters, the fan-remake, just to get a fix... z: )

I'd also like to reiterate what others have said.  I'm super glad that I'll only have to be messing with the campaign folder to get my mod working with the new version, but if more needs to break in time, it just plain needs to break.  Probably better to take the elasterplast off quickly. 

2

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: August 02, 2013, 02:42:59 AM »

You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to getting this release in your guys' hands

You have no idea how much I'm looking forwards to some fresh new Starsector space adventuring!

...and yet there's tiny voice in my head saying, "You know updating your mod for all this is going to hurt right?"  I think of the work you're doing and I feel shame for that voice. z: )

3

Suggestions / Re: Formations?

« on: June 24, 2013, 04:16:29 PM »

But I would love it if having rigid control was possible, for the cold-blooded, tactical-warfare people who are willing to do math and build a fleet that meets their exact requirements.  I think it'd be awesome if, someday, we had a way to trade Fleets with one another and could pit our Fleets against each other, with AI control but player direction as to formations and initial objectives.

Hey there, enjoyed the post, but that bit, must say;

You have played Gratuitous Space Battles right?  Because you're describing Gratuitous Space Battles.  The multiplayer works exactly like that, with the posting of and retaliations against Challenges.'  You design your ships (with a very flexible slots system,) you set your formations, you give them orders and they operate as they are bid.  When you're sure you have a killer fleet, you post it online, someone utterly crushes it and ideally sends you a fleet back for you to attempt the same to (and super ideally, you get a rock-paper-scissors-OMGFIGHTERBBQ to-and-fro going on for a while.)

Cliffski (the dev) did eventually put in a 'Direct Control' system, but it's a: optional, b: rubbish and c: doesn't work on the Challenges you post.  GSB is pretty much still all in the cunning craft of an AI fleet. 

It's a game I've enjoyed immensely.  I'm quite proud of my 0.33 speed well-balanced Rebel fleet and the way it crushes turtle after turtle. z: )

Incidentally, if you were (as seems likely) already aware of GSB then please do excuse me, because really I suppose I just wanted an opportunity to go on about GSB.

4

Suggestions / Re: NO_DRONES

« on: June 18, 2013, 07:51:26 AM »

Seconded, seriously.  I mean, if you were the captain of that ship, would you not bring the palm of your hand rapidly to the back of your gunnery officer's head for that?

5

Suggestions / Re: Caplock switch between strafe mode and turn mode

« on: June 18, 2013, 07:42:31 AM »

You know you can rebind the keys, right? Swap 'shift-a' for 'a' and 'shift-d' for 'd'.

Alternatively, there's an option in config.json called "autoturnMode:false". Set that option 'true' and your ship will always turn towards cursor, unless you're holding shift.

EDIT: Looks like I already posted earlier in the thread... about 10 months ago or so.

Yes you did and I read that.  No need to repeat yourself. 

Also, it's not quite relevant.  The OP and myself are asking for an in-game toggle, which is an enormous difference in gameplay terms.  The ability to switch from one not-always-practical system to another not-always-practical system by quitting the game and changing a variable via notepad is not a satisfactory solution for an in-game control issue when what's really needed is the ability to change it on the fly to respond to changing tactical situations (and ships.)

6

Suggestions / Re: Caplock switch between strafe mode and turn mode

« on: June 17, 2013, 05:51:54 AM »

Look, look, look... for the majority of the time when you're controlling a ship in combat, you're holding down shift. 

That is a problem. 

I've been playing SPAZ again recently and I just couldn't help but think, "You know what, not having to hold shift all the time is pretty awesome.  It is in fact the case that I more often want this mode on then off."

Having to hold shift constantly through combat to get your ship oriented correctly is just a function of the fact that digital (on-off) controls have never been satisfactory for rotation.  Top down or otherwise (and I remember trying to play Wing Commander with the keyboard, oh so many moons ago...)  Barely adequate out of combat, useless when firing precision is required.  Then as now, you need something with fine control (then an analogue joystick, back when analogue joysticks were the fancy ones, now a mouse.)

The current system is uncomfortable and inconvenient.  A toggle feature bound to a button other then shift would be ideal, one which toggled whether shift turned mouse-following on or off.  Yes it's another thing to keep track of, but frankly, I find the current unsatisfactory system to be more inconvenient (and over a duration, physically uncomfortable) then merely observing what shift currently does. 

7

Suggestions / Re: Surrendering Mechanics

« on: June 04, 2013, 10:33:32 AM »

I like the idea. 

Historically pirates have always operated under some code beyond, 'kill them all, yarr,' which would only make their life harder and shorter.  It more often works like your average land-based muggery, if a bit more disciplined and reasonable.  They'll kill you to make a point if you fight them, but if you surrender peacefully, they'll let you live and wont take all of your stuff (after all, if they kill trade in a region, what are they going to make a living off of?) 

There are a lot of fanciful misconceptions about piracy to this day that reality couldn't bear out.  For example; that gold and riches were the primary aims.  They were not (not that they'd turn them down) but what they really tended to go after was food and medical supplies, y'know, the kind of thing that keeps them alive and free.  Most would also seperate the (often press-ganged (kidnapped)) crew from the officers and then ask if any wanted to join and live as free (if hunted) men.  Though most pirate ships at the time tended to be the result of mutinies by conscripted men.  Following which your choices were piracy, starvation or the noose.

Of course there are exceptions, such as the Dread Pirate Blackbeard, but then that's why we remember them, that's why they became legends that capture the imagination. 

Naturally I imagine Alex has already thought of this.  The game and the pirates are as they are because the game is currently set up to test combat.  Given time, I'm sure we may even come to feel a little guilt for the bajillions of what we thought of as brainless pirate mooks we've killed, when they start to talk to us and beg us for table scraps, after they ran away from their evil hegemony masters.  z: )

8

Suggestions / Re: Joining Engagements

« on: June 02, 2013, 12:10:16 PM »

Given that this feature was in Mount & Blade, which this game takes a lot of ques from, it would make a lot of sense.  Particularly if we get to ally with the powers of space or set up our own little empire of outposts and set up our own fleets to defend them.  It would be pretty rubbish to watch our allies or worse, our expensive defensive fleets evaporate in a second before we could do a damn thing to save them.

For the time being, the feature isn't necessary, but when it does, I can see it becoming difficult.  I imagine quite a lot of work has gone into making the battles work as one side vs. another.  It may be more difficult then we imagine to implement multiple factions with differing allegiances on the battle grid. 

9

Suggestions / Re: Pre-Battle Strategizing

« on: May 30, 2013, 01:22:08 AM »

I can't help but agree that some level of out-of-battle pre-setting of orders could be helpful.  At the moment, there's a lot of repetition of effort, setting the same ships to the same orders each battle.  Furthermore, later, when you're up against more serious foes, I've personally found I have to stop flying my own ship and concentrate upon the battlemap - otherwise ships are far more likely to get themselves destroyed if I'm not watching every part of the map.

A Tactics tab would be nice, even if it just has a few checkboxes and dropdowns, such as, 'Hull Damage Retreat Level,' 'Start Flagship in Autopilot' (since I often don't get to fly it later on anyway and see little point in handling the first 30 seconds of manuevering in any case.)  You could allow it to give more control over Fighter wings, such as controlling their retreat/resupply levels and whether or not to resupply or retreat after expending strike weapons (ie when you've attacked a small group of light frigates and don't want your torpedo bombers gobbling up all your supplies never hitting anything,) though that last one could easily be a toggle in the battle map (though ideally there would be both,) "Resupply Strike Weapons [ ]" with a light in the box when resupply is active (which it would be by default.)  Heck, being able to set a retreat time for frigates would be handy too, so as to better husband their upcoming diminishing Combat Readiness (and have them give warning at the top of the screen as well, so you know they're about to pull out and allow manual cancellation of that order in combat for those exceptional times when you can't spare their guns, burned out engine coils or no.) 

If the tactics tab could let you set default orders for each ship (so it could have a smaller ship selection box like the fleet tab on the bottom left and the same command buttons as on the battle map on the bottom right) so you can set up that which you will every map in any case, ie the HMS.Noclosedefense which will always need an escort, gets one every time.   Perhaps a default "Waypoint Alpha" could be generated just in front of each fleet's starting spot (perhaps, since we're losing battle objectives in the next patch, it would be prudent to give us default waypoints anyway) so your Carriers and Civilian ships will always hang back to pelt the enemy with LRM's and wont throw in unless you manually rescind the order. 

This would not be necessary addition to the game, it would just be nice.  Very nice.  Like vastly reducing boring busywork and letting you enjoy the game more nice.  When I'm staring at the icons on the battlemap because I can't count on my ship captains and wing commanders, all of those pretty graphics are pointless.  z: j

10

Suggestions / Re: Phase Carrier

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:12:09 AM »

I already have one in my mod, the Lambton blockade runner.

It's seriously not that good.  Phase cloaks are not that good.  All you need to do is be faster, stay focussed and wait them out, they build up hard flux as a percentage not a set amount (you basically cannot stay in phase forever.)  Pilum LRM's also work wonders.  Longer you stay in phase with those bearing down on you, the worse it's going to get.  Not that it doesn't have its uses, but it's just another tool in the box.

11

Suggestions / Re: Break Uping the Fleet

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:13:03 AM »

With outposts, multisystems and officers all planned, I think it would be pretty crazy not to be able to form secondary fleets, you'll practically need them for patrols, trade convoys, etc.  Of course this probably means you'll be flying to the rescue of your defense fleets as much as your outposts, though I'm sure they could hold out a lot better... and I imagine it would make sense if NPC combat was no longer instantly resolved as it is now and instead had timer cycles between its own battle stages (so you had time to intervene.)

12

Suggestions / Re: 2 submarine inspired phase cloak suggestions

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:15:54 AM »

This is apparently why submarines wont be making an appearance in World of Warships when it eventually comes out.  "Too puny, slow and vulnerable," for serious battles apparently (which is why they were employed (very effectively) as commerce raiders IRL) they're stricly hit and run vessels. 

I personally like the idea, though in the spirit of thing, making it missiles-only.  A very limited payload requiring precise timing in its deployment is VERY dramatic space battles and work wonders on ships like my Jade Claw Cartel's Phantom. z: )

13

Suggestions / Re: Self-repeairing hull

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:06:01 AM »

I'm not saying that the armor would be equivalent to a rocky asteroid in terms of resistance to damage/bombardment, I'm just pointing out that the amount of physical force needed to shatter an asteroid into dust in a few volleys is.. considerable.

That depends on the kind of asteroid. Asteroids that contain mostly metals can take quite a few punches, while asteroids that are mostly individual rocks, bound together by their gravity, are difficult to destroy because they will most likely split (think Asteroids, the game).

But we're not here for the realism, are we?

We're not really here for the physics, but conjecture is one of the joys of sci-fi. z: )

Yeah, there are a lot of asteroids which are just pure iron (brittle, slow-cooled iron,) but then most asteroids are about five miles across and thousands of miles apart.  I think we're generally happy to leave those aspects of realism behind for the sake of fun.

Yeah they should split.  They should also mess ships up badly if they hit them.  That could be really annoying though.  

A thought...

if HE weapons are actually HEAT then they why should ships loose a lot of mass to them?
I'm no weapons expert but shouldn't HEAT ammo work like a blowtorch welding through armor instead of shattering it?
In this case the mass loss is negligable and any nanites could use the melted goop that used to be armor plates for repairs the second it cools down.

That's actually a much bigger pandoras box then you think, which calls into question all explosive weapons to begin with.  

When an explosive weapon goes off, there's a release of heat and pressure.  In an atmosphere, that pressure wave can demolish buildings, throw vehicles around and pulp people.  In vacuum, there is no media for that pressure wave to really exist, let alone be transmitted to a ship's armour.  It's also worth noting that even in an atmosphere, said armour isn't much bothered by the heat and pressure unless you focus it (ala HEAT.)  

This goes for all explosions, up to and including nukes.  When there's no atmosphere to produce the explosion/implosion effect, you just get a full-band release of energy (a big blinding flash and no fireball at all,) which is why it was conceivable that the Battlestar Galactica's heavy plating held out against one in the 2003 reboot and why it's hard to swallow that the super-advanced Black Star was destroyed by one left as a booby trap in Babylon 5.  Testing on this is currently banned because when it was last tried IRL, in the 70's, the enhanced EMP release also took out every satellite not occluded by the earth (good job it was the 70's, that would be a lot more devestating now.)

Anyway, back on conventional ordinance.  In space, a HEAT (High Explosive, Anti Tank) charge, due to the lack of pressure media, isn't going to be effective at all (nothing to transmit the blowtorch.)  There are better shell types, HEAP (High Explosive Armour Piercing) is largely a kinetic penetrator with an explosive charge in the back to enhance collateral damage on penetration (instead of JUST bouncing around, red hot with the heat of steel-through-steel friction.)   Given that ships have atmosphere (and flimsier internals,) that should work a lot better, if it doesn't bounce or shatter, which if course it's more likely to, since it has less weight and solidity then a standard AP shot (shot, because it's only a shell if it's hollow.)  The best explosive warhead  to use against armoured spaceships is probably HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) which splatters a pat (actual term) of explosive on the armour, which then in full contact, transmits a shockwave through the medium of the armour itself, creating intersecting shockwaves that knock loose chunks of armour on the inside of the plate which then fly around breaking stuff/people.  It'll only leave an indentation on the armour rather then breaking it, however (though the effect is completely ruined by spaced armour.)

Really Alex kind of has it backwards with Kinetics working best against Shields and Explosive working against armour.  It's the opposite of real life, even with an atmosphere in place.  I can see the sudden energy release of an explosive overloading shield projectors, I don't see it bothering armour plates much.   I don't see kinetic projectiles bothering a shield projector any more then a laser (y'know, assuming you have the tech to stop either/or with your fuzzy energy pillow,) whilst it's generally best to penetrate something hard with something hard and fast.  It seems like soft and hard weapons and defenses have been swapped around.  

Then again we're totally not in this for realism.  Particularly because realism is complicated and fussy. z: )

14

Suggestions / Re: Abandoned Station Loot

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:47:33 AM »

Bearing in mind that the full release will have you building your own outposts, the abandoned station will be somewhat redundant as I'm sure the ability to store and retrieve ships (and I imagine set them into guard fleets etc) will be mid-game content.  Early game I imagine you'd have to be as, if not far more frugal with resources (including Fleet Points) since I imagine 'instant Credits for CPU cores in the loot' wont be around in release either.  Hello commodity trading; I'm ready for you, you *bleep*.

The game is balanced currently as what it is and what it is right now happens to be is a test platform for the mechanics currently implemented; combat and basic campaign.  Having the abandoned station around is currently useful for testing different fleet layouts and generating feedback about how the combat and fleet maintenance mechanics work for people. 

In the final release, with the fully implemented campaign, I imagine it may be possible to encounter abandoned stations, though they may be abandoned for good reasons;  Remoteness, damage, horrible monster infestation.  Perhaps if you can overcome those (perhaps by buying marines/crew and feeding enough of them quickly enough into the meat grinder to choke it) you can get yourself a free outpost of some variety.  That would be cool. 

15

Suggestions / Re: Self-repeairing hull

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:06:17 AM »

Well, not so sure there.  I mean, there's no absense of fruity materials in sci-fi (plasteel... what IS plasteel..?  ...and TRItanium?  That's like Titanium but half again right?  ...but compared to Titanium alloyed with what?  Titanium is crystalline on its own.), but I'd have to disagree.  Even standard RHA (Rolled Homegenised Armour) Steel Plate (such as exited stage left when modern composites turned out to be cheaper and lighter and better against things like shaped charges) is harder, tougher and less brittle then rock.   Rock formations in space would be prone to flying apart the moment you created a big enough fault (not much gravity keeping it together, not much force needed to send bits flying) whereas metals have flex and give.  Buckling is preferable to shattering, from an integrity point of view.  Which is why you mine with steel (or harder metal) edged tools. 

I'd definitely agree that nanoplague weapons are probably on the 'banned list.'  Futuristic nanomachines designed for endless self replication (with handwave levels of efficiency - as of today we consider it unlikely to be able to manufacture nano-machines that could out-compete plants and bacteria) could render any mass (such as a precious planet) near useless.  To 'un-grey-goo' the planet, you'd practically have to melt it and every nanogram of a ship destroyed in such a fashion would be a long-term time bomb, gradually drawn to one gravity well or another.  It could strike a ship in flight, a space habitat or a large enough mass to survive re-entry could land in a remote region on a colony world.  A few months later the ground starts caving in as whatever types of matter are consumed by a growing silver sea.

I'd ban it.  I hope the future bans it too.  z: )