Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

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 - Zsar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Mmh. I mean... what I see is
  • ships staying in the pretty-random positions they are placed in on combat start
  • ships moving a miniscule amount, then freezing up again
  • different ships unfreezing at different times
When they do start to move, they are - of course - out of position. This is always bad.

E.g. in my last screenshots three out of four of my own ships already trade fire with the enemy, while the fourth is still "frozen", an allied Mora already trading fire with the enemy, while an allied Dominator is still "frozen".

This looks, if not like a bug, then like traitors. (But of my own ships the one remaining frozen is my own flagship... !?)

These observations tell me that, even if "to freeze up" is completely intentional behaviour, the rules which govern when a ship will do it, how long a ship will do it, must be inconsistent enough to allow an attacker the advantage.

The ships always (so far) do "wake up" eventually, but they really do play into the hands of the attacker this way.

From your descriptions, in comparison, I would expect to see the old and trusty algorithm for defense commands since... mmh, before the first Command & Conquer, if memory serves, which goes about like this:

Thresholds:
  • loiter distance L (often RTSses seemed to just use "0" here)
  • engagement distance E
  • pursuit distance P
  • L < E < P

Algorithm:
  • try to move (and stay) closer to the target than L
  • if enemies come closer than E, engage them, move away from the target as necessary while remaining engaged
  • if the engaged enemy moves beyond P, go to 2
  • if no enemies are closer than P, go to 1

But then an invariant would be that all ships with the same defense target would at the same time be in the same step.

Several observations point against the current behavour being a conscious attempt to improve upon this admittedly primitive, ancient and obviously problematic algorithm:
  • several un-frozen ships are closer to each other than the gaps in their lines are wide, so the frozen ships would have the space to join them (as indicated by the red lines I drew for the Dominator
  • several un-frozen ships are in front of the target, but the frozen ships are all behind it
  • there are more attackers than defenders on either side of the target, braced by non-frozen defenders (the left Eagle (LG) and the right Afflictor (P))
So, what I cannot see is why the frozen ships have not woken up yet. What are they waiting for?
  • if it is range, that check has failed: other defenders already think enemies are in range
  • if it is space, that check has failed: other defenders are fine with moving together closer than the gaps are wide
  • if it is a competing strength check, that check has failed: the enemy has more ships, similar-or-bigger ships and more DP on both sides of the target
and this is why I think that there must be some bug. (Or, admittedly, that perhaps the feature has not been completely implemented - but there is nothing in the changelog for this version and ships freezing up at all outside of capturing objectives is new! If it is both undocumented and it does not help - of course it must be a bug, namely a regression.)

What I do not see, but would convince me there is no bug involved:
  • in all given spaces the defenders clearly outmatch the attackers by some metric, before superfluous defenders freeze
  • superfluous defenders move from their random starting position towards a waiting position from which they could quickly join the fight, only then freeze
    (side note: Maybe they are doing this, but
  • as the engaged ships continously move around, presumably spare defenders also have to continuously adjust their waiting position, so in practise they would not actually freeze at all
  • if defenders want to wait out a fight, either they move back far enough to not spend PPT or move close enough to fire guided missiles
    (side note: But maybe they do? There is no good way I know of to easily observe this. It does not look like it, because mostly they just stay wherever they spawned, which is almost guaranteed to not be a sensible place.)
  • if too many defenders exist to engage all at once, defenders with the means to support stay back preferredly
    (e.g. in the screenshot situation, the Mora stays back because it can still send fightercraft, the Dominator moves up instead because it cannot help at all from elsewhere; the Odyssey likewise would prefer not to stay back because all its fighters are support fighters that cannot help from the back)

... Does that sound at least somewhat relatable? My perception is that "blatantly obviously" something must be wrong, even if of course I cannot know what exactly that is, but obviously you do not share that perception and I am, unfortunately, quite lost as to whence this divide comes from.

2
Suggestions / Re: Built-in Drones should not be Fighter Wings
« on: March 03, 2024, 11:22:27 AM »
Note: (If memory serves - I cannot seem to find it now -) Another suggestion exists that would make Converted Fighter Bays not a Logistics mod.

On my Ventures I notice it is quite painful to want to get rid of the fighter bays for skills, yet have to choose between Efficiency Overhaul and Solar Shielding for length of expeditions.

Both suggestions have merit, but I think that other suggestion would be preferable to this one, as it does not require to add another layer of complexity (ideally: "almost all built-in fighters are not fighters").

3
General Discussion / Re: Some bloat content
« on: March 03, 2024, 11:19:35 AM »
I tested the following altered Black Market behaviour:
  • weapon quality is linear with market stability
  • weapon amount is inversely linear with market stability
  • only pirate and market-owner weapons are available (vanilla: also Independent)
It now is very hard to get things like Needlers or Large missiles. The Mark IX Autocannon is still widely available, which is perhaps a bit bad. In general, weapon tiers could be a bit stricter. (And effectively there are still mostly two instead of the four in data: "effectively-civilian" and "effectively-not-civilian".)

At this point, the bar missions still provide far too easy access to highest-tier Energy weapons like Plasma Cannons and Tachyon Lances, so I think I will have to do more. But it is a very nice first step towards making low-tier weapons very attractive because we need them to get higher-tier weapons.

I think I will have to improve and try again:
  • weapon availability on the Black Market should not be linear (logarithmic?) or maybe should have some greater-zero minimum
  • bar mission blueprint selection seems to be separate from any faction technology list and has to be balanced separately
  • weapon tiers themselves have to be reviewed - it is way easier to get Typhoon Reapers, of all things, than to get even Small Breach SRMs

4
Suggestions / Re: Generalized projectile and fighter interactions
« on: March 03, 2024, 11:12:27 AM »
Sounds like a fun experience, I'll say. I think I'd like to see this, especially if a tiny flash or pop could visualise the interaction when it happens. (Bonus points for kinetic projectiles instead or additionally-for-very-steep-angles deflecting each other or for kinetic projectiles being able to split energy projectiles.)

Will probably require some effort to be done performantly, e.g. by having the GPU do it - sounds like the kind of particle interaction that should be well suited to.

Note that pretty much all weapons, including those with "perfect" accuracy have some spread to them, so it is not at all a given that identical loadouts shooting each other will completely neutralise each other.

5
why do so many people want to drop nukes on civilian targets without any consequences? I mean, sure NPCs get double standard for this, but that's mainly cause they don't have a brain.
I mean... speaking just for me, this double standard is one of the things that can well and pretty please stay in RL and out of the games I play. At least the game narrator itself should acknowledge that it is a double standard, instead of just gaslighting the player. Keep that to the news!

(I do not mind at all, if characters in the game attempt this - it's only natural. But we should also be able to call them out on it, and - again - the game itself should acknowledge it.)

6
Mmh. Okay, if that is what happens... could that range be way too small?

It does not look healthy, neither on my side, nor in your recording, what happens there. You have five ships, out of these, only a single weapon can fire. What will that accomplish with the game mechanics (PPT! Flux!) as they are?

Should they not at the very least get into some sort of position, as (generally now, always pre-0.97a) happens in a fleet battle? What good is hanging out in the middle of nowhere? E.g. if the Buffalo Mk.II can shoot, should not the Kite and the two Shepherds move slightly in front of it, so they too can shoot? And should not all four ships fall back, once they decide they are being kite-d? Just stopping wherever, in whatever formation, cannot possibly be the Right Thing ever?

(Side note: I'd very much appreciate if pure-carriers or missile boats like precisely the Buffalo Mk.II could act like this on demand, but for the general ship it is nothing less than self-sabotage.)

Okay, long story short, I made another test:
  • load save
  • set Fleet Aggression to Aggressive
  • join battle
  • set Defense target on station for own ships
This is what I see:
  • my own Afflictor (P), my own two Eagle (LG), about half the allied ships engage the enemy in front of the station
  • my Odyssey and about half the allied ships move about behind the station
  • one allied Dominator and one allied Vanguard (on the bottom left) remain "frozen" and just ignore everything
  • (one allied Shepherd escorts the "frozen" allied Vanguard... also questionable at best)
... I do not think this works in a sensible way. E.g. why does the Mora engage but the Dominator does not?

7
It may be somewhat realistic that the player faction is handled differently than the established ones - we see that in current and past RL history as well.

But like the Japanese at Tsushima, eventually the player faction should attain their "proper rank" among their peers - why not by humiliating an established polity (like the Persean League with their giant blockade armada they will - like Russia - send once across the globe sector to make their point).

... It would not hurt, though, if the reaction to leveling a backwater like Skathi were markedly different from, say, destroying the single most-populated world in the sector, Chicomoztoc. (Yet, maybe worlds like Yesod should have a backlash greater-than-warranted-by-population-alone, as they are rare producer of a commodity vital for everyone and everything.)

8
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: February 24, 2024, 08:53:48 AM »
That is exactly my point: You always have the weapons to set up a basic fleet. Always. Not the best weapons, not the best synergising weapons, but always whatever weapons and until you meet late game content, those will get the job done perfectly fine

This has not always been so, but now that both Mining Laser and Mining Blaster are Hybrid I cannot fathom how to run into such a situation.

Sure, if you pick up a cheap bar mission Champion, filling the Large Energy slot will be a challenge - maybe don't buy that particular ship, it's pretty much the single worst bar mission ship you can grab in the early game. None of the other candidates comes with that problem, it is pretty much limited to exactly Large Energy slots. (And Large Missile slots, but leaving these empty does not render a ship completely useless on the ships that have them - they just make for a spectacular upgrade, when you do finally fill them.)

9
Yes, that looks like it! Though I never got them to turn before freezing. Eh, maybe just "unlucky".

The three front ships completely going still definitely looks like what I refer to as "freeze up", whereas the two ships in the back keep moving about and look "unaffected".

... Uh, that recording is way worse than everything I have seen though - they are already in weapons range themselves and still do not wake up!? If that, too, can happen, maybe I should drop the '[Minor]' in the title, really hope that can get fixed.

10
Suggestions / Re: expand doctrine to hull mods
« on: February 24, 2024, 08:43:44 AM »
Mmh. Really now? That is pretty cool... and... completely undocumented, is it?

But even though, this means we have to get one of every kind into our fleet first to access the variants screen, then we have to drop those we do not want and save these we do want... every single run.

I think a touch greater accessibility would not hurt in this case, I really do. In one go, maybe it could allow us to Custom Production order full variants instead of ships with random loadouts?

11
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: February 24, 2024, 08:36:52 AM »
What would a blueprint help in the current situation, if I have no place to produce something myself?

Bar missions or contacts up to 1'000'000 € where you can (sometimes) use your own blueprints? Or do get a colony, for that extra end-game content on top? For weapons you can use Heavy Industry without core and without nanoforge and it will work just fine?

When will you use the Machine Guns, the Heavy Mortars, the Thumpers and Arbalests, if you go for gold right away? Maybe just - don't.

Can't say it makes the game any harder, but it does keep the refit screen a fresh mechanic for a while longer. In my current game, I now have most of the blueprints and a healthy three colonies with Orbital Works - all ships are just autofit variants now, because everything is always available. Game content not scaling into the late game - the (one big) Starsector run killer.

12
Ah! Yes, fair, it's a phase ship. They all have this issue: 1-on-1 only really works for frigates.
Nvm. brainfart on my part. It's well documented in the recent Grendel thread and Harbinger works exactly the same.

13
Well, there are both extremes: Sometimes they hug their prey so tightly they blow up along with it. Especially frigates killing a capital (or cruisers killing a station) can go from 100% to 0 hull this way.

... But yes, that does happen. The balance seems to be tied to the overall (perceived) strength of the two fleets, which is... quite a pessimisation, (or at least, optimisation towards "the stronger fleet wins harder").

One time, did a Grendel vs. Eagle sim.  Grendel beat up Eagle until a sliver of its left, then Grendel sat and stalled for several minutes.  Eagle beat up Grendel for most of its life before Grendel woke up and finished off Eagle.
Now this, on the other hand, looks like straight up a bug. (No other targets available.) I fear it will not be reproducible, but if you manage, a report may have a better chance than for the more general "let's reprioritise right now" behaviour.

14
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.97a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: February 24, 2024, 08:13:04 AM »
... I really don't like where this is going, truth be told: It is bad enough that even the most high-end weapon will, 100% eventually show up just lying around for cheap in some Black Market stall. Making it dependable too would essentially be the first step to one and only one logical conclusion: Remove weapon tiers, remove commission restrictions, give the stand-alone mission inventory in campaign mode, and finally: Remove all but the top-performing weapons, because no one uses these anyway.

I'd rather have it be harder to just buy up the good stuff, maybe it's in a bad spot currently: So easy that we can feel tempted to try, yet not as easy as to always stay convenient. If it gets much harder, maybe we just won't get such ideas and go straight to blueprints, the proper solution.

15
Suggestions / Re: Get rid of type "delete" to delete saves
« on: February 23, 2024, 06:23:52 PM »
Alternatively, maybe one of the following might be a good compromise:
  • allow highlighting more than one save and have us type "delete" only once to delete all highlighted
  • add specific buttons "delete all older saves" (for predecessors of Save Copy) and "delete all older-version saves" (for after upgrading to a newer Starsector version) and have us type "delete" only once to delete all pertaining saves
    - these should cover >90% of all cases where we want to delete several saves at the same time

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19