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 - Icelom

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
i didint get a single word of all that. you're coming out with talk of balance, implementation of ship fought in the past and stuff.

i just wanted to know why there's not more ship available for simulation, even its if just stock variants. O_o

like i played a mission by Mrdavidoff. while in simulation, for opponent you could choose between every vanilla ship in the game. How is that not standard in starsector to begin with ?

I think he made it pretty clear, that he does not know how he wants the simulation to work so is not putting any time/effort into it.

Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.6a (In Development) Patch Notes
« on: March 19, 2013, 09:15:28 PM »
Alex, do you think any other ammo-based weapons will affect CR? I'm thinking mostly of Ballistics, but there are some ammo-based Energy-DMG type weapons. (AM Blaster or Mjollnir, for example). You'd need to reload ammo based weapons between fights, no? Technically, that would affect combat readiness. I imagine you kinda don't want to touch on that yet (if at all) since that could push players towards pure, unlimited-ammo Energy-type weapons.

Probably not. Missiles are different in that they're both low-ammo and not generally a primary weapon type. For ballistics, ammo is there more for feel than mechanical reasons. I might actually eliminate ammo for ballistics altogether, or just bump it up to where it doesn't matter. Limited ammo on primary weapons creates some undesirable dynamics, such as waiting out the AI's ammo, aforementioned issues with what the desired AI behavior is (cautious to avoid damage vs aggressive to make efficient use of ammo), etc.

What if running out of ballistic ammo caused a small CR drop (so supply drop as well) and used a longer reload time to "restock" the ammo bays like 10-30 seconds(or longer)... this means you cant run out of ammo unless you stay in the fight so long your CR is gone... but it also makes ammo have some relevance. This idea could be extended to missiles as well giving them a larger CR drop and a larger restocking time.

Just an idea, because i think ammo count should stay somewhat relevant but i also understand why it can be exploited, "waiting" out the enemy fleet to deplete all its ammo may be effective but is it really fun?

General Discussion / Re: Tactical laser and small energy mounts
« on: May 28, 2012, 02:11:58 PM »
Depends on the situation.  I love tactical lasers as much as you, especially when fielded with phase beams and something else with a lot of punch (like a plasma cannon, in the case of an Apogee).  Other times I'll use IR pulse lasers, which give more dps, though they're more costly and woefully flux inefficient, as well as a little less reliable.

I have never really used ion cannons.  I should probably try to fit them on more vessels, but their huge flux buildup makes them unappealing.

I also use alot of IR pulse lasers, i really like them. the tac lasers are nice, but sometimes i want something that applies fulx to the other ship that cant be passivly lost.

I am looking forward to officer skills and develipment Not on your pole... so did not vote.

Small: Mortar....
Its so cheap and i love it so much...

Cant say on the other sizes... depends what i need on the ship really.

General Discussion / Re: range indicators fail?
« on: March 09, 2012, 02:31:57 AM »
Wait weapons have damage fall off?  IN SPACE?

Lasers would be the only ones, shells and missiles wouldnt.

But for gameplay reasons we need to have range limitations and damage falloff.

General Discussion / Re: range indicators fail?
« on: March 07, 2012, 04:24:29 PM »
I think its intended they do alot less damage past there range if i am not mistaken.

Suggestions / Re: Desura Alpha Funding
« on: March 06, 2012, 09:23:03 AM »
I'll be harsh here people: Unless you have a genuine, step-by-step business plan that's more complicated than "OMG, get Starfarer on X and make $$$", I suggest sticking to speculation on gameplay and lore.

No one gives out money for free; every third party distributor require some sort of cost, commitment or time. If you've thought of it, I'm pretty sure an actual dev like Alex and crew have thought of it and ran it through their business model already. So please stop with the steam, Kickstarter, Humble Indie Bundle etc comment.

For those enamored by the sheer pulsating awesomeness of Starfarer and want to help, buy a copy for all your friends and get everyone you know and their pet dog to buy a copy FROM the website (so every cent goes to the dev).


Suggestions / Re: Ship mods and deployment points
« on: March 04, 2012, 11:10:13 PM »
I like the ideas here, since its a single player game i dont really see anything wrong with being able to beef your ships more with credits....

Why not br able to spend some of my hard erned space bucks on changing a mount type or increasing its OP.

Suggestions / Re: Under-mounting Weapons
« on: March 04, 2012, 11:04:52 PM »
To elaborate even more, maybe you could only view in the future loadouts for friendly encounters. Even better would be to obscure the exact type of ships in the encounter, only listing the hull types and not the ships themselves. That would make encounters a far better experience in whole I think.

Agree +1

General Discussion / Re: AI and Missiles
« on: March 04, 2012, 11:00:28 PM »
What's silly is how ineffective missiles in general, they have hilariously limited ammo and no accuracy of any description.

While i dont agree with this statemnt ^^

However I do agree with jamesraynor's initial post, the AI is not that great at using its missiles, more so in smaller fights they often hold onto missiles in 1 on 1 engagments for reasons i cant comprehend.

Suggestions / Re: Suggestions & Feedback regarding the Campaign
« on: March 04, 2012, 01:47:06 AM »

They indeed can do things that players cannot realistically do, you need to play with the elite AI some more.  The elite AI is pretty good at shield management with a few quirks I mentioned above.  I found that regular/green AI was about as dumb as bricks, but the Elite AI was about as tactical or better than I was, even possessing good flanking ability.

Even if that is the case that they can only use one at a time, that doesn't mean they can switch between weapons within a few milliseconds of each other. 

As for how armor could be better indicated?

Currently armor is either Green or Gray, some more variations between those points would help tell you how much armor is left.  Could start as blue (undamaged), green (>75%), yellow (>50%), orange (>25%), red (<25%) and grey (0%).

I know i am better at piloting then the ai, because only i can keep fragile ships alive. i give the ai the robust ones.

You are dividing the armor up into "zones" again its down to very small hit locations thats a tone of coloured zones that will not be usefull at all you cant just carve a ship into 8ths or whatever someone will see oh its yellow on my front get hit for direct hull damage there because in that spot of that colour zone there is no armour... To me that would be endlessly fustrating right now i can quickly asses where my armour is weak and where it is not i really dont think it needs to be changed.

Suggestions / Re: Ship kill stats
« on: March 03, 2012, 01:30:09 PM »
General statistics like damage dealt, points captured and ships destroyed would be useful and a good addition imo.

I do agree, damage dealt would be really nice after a battle even further broken down to damage dealt to sheilds, armor and hull. If i loadout a ship to tear through sheilds and all it does in each fight is hit armour and hull then it would be good to know because there is clerly something wrong with it (like its to slow and arrives when sheilds are down).


Travel speed
I've read that the travel speed calculations are getting an update come next patch.. but I honestly can't make heads or tails of the explanation of how the new system works.. Anybody care to elaborate in a way an idiot could understand? :P

Currently it will reduce your speed based on how many ships you have in your fleet, not the speed of the ships, which isn't very intuitive..

I've read many many posts on the forum about people wanting the fleet to simply take the slowest ships speed as the travel speed, simple..

How does the new system work? slowest speed minus a % based on how many ships in your fleet?

This is how it works to my knowalge.

The new system will take the lower of 2 possible values, the slowest ship in your fleet, or the average speed of your fleet minus a fleet size multiplier.

Basically how it works now is the slowest ship in your fleet with a fleet size multiplier.

As it stands right now you put a condor in your fleet the fleet goes that speed minus a fleet multiplier, with the changes it will just go that speed unless you have a tone of other slow ships then it might go slower. (if the average minus multiplier is lower hten the condors speed)

I could be wrong on this but i think thats how it works.

General Discussion / Re: Your favorite Onslaught loadouts
« on: March 02, 2012, 10:55:24 PM »
I did not know that. Fair enough.
Well I'm fairly certain anyway, haha. They did a whole balance pass, so I assumed any remaining irregularities were unnoticed or unintentional.

i beleive in the notes for the next release it states they fixed the loadout inconsistances.

Things were changed with ship balancing but varients were not updated to reflect new balance...

This was taken from the patch notes posted on the 29th
"•Fixed various ship variant/hull inconsistencies (small missile slot on Condor, etc)"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9