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.

4366

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.53.1a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 05, 2012, 09:16:07 AM »

Well, that's what it's called in the tutorial.  It's basically you in your flagship commanding your fleet.  I always took it as that.

Really? As far as I remember it was only called Command Interface and map, maybe it has been removed.

4367

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.53.1a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: September 05, 2012, 08:45:12 AM »

That hint was already given on Twitter last week

Alexander Mosolov ?@amosolov
To fuel some speculation: it's on one of the formerly-greyed-out tabs.

My bed is on outposts, since there is already graphics for them in the game.

Hey Alex, a question: I noticed the graphics for the tactical map are labeled "warroom", does that mean it represents the character  being in such a command room while looking at that map?

4368

Suggestions / Re: Multiplayer Suggestion, A.K.A 'OH GOD NO'

« on: September 05, 2012, 03:52:34 AM »

I think that its kind of bad the first post by most people is usually asking for multi-player and is greeted by a sigh and a snappy comment. We need to find a way to make it better known that multi-player in any form, will not work so that people aren't greeted in such an unpleasant and un-collaborative manner. I just don't think that this presents a welcoming first impression for people.

My comments were not meant to be "rude", "snappy" or "contemptuous", why do you see them as that?* The title "A.K.A 'OH GOD NO'" implied that OP knew that multiplayer was a worn out topic. I did not even notice that killeraypp was new, otherwise I would have welcomed him/her. (This is not the welcome to the forum thread after all.)


*Honest question, I'm no natural speaker and while I don't have too many problems with grammar and vocabulary, the delicacies of American tone often puzzle me. Sprinkles and Rainbows are something that I feel would come naturally to me only when talking to a little kid or mentally disabled person. So if anyone spoke to me that way, that would probably feel mocking or contemptuous... oh wonderful world of cultural differences


Oh, and to make him/her the most greeted person on this forum ever: Welcome to the Forum killeraypp!

4369

General Discussion / Re: A Thread for dreamers

« on: September 04, 2012, 04:05:52 PM »

I'm surprised there are so many modest dreams here, settling down or just making a living...

I would get me an Apogee-Class with the best Crew I can find and sail out to unknown systems. Try to establish contact with cut off, forgotten colonies and collect as much knowledge and technology as I can. I would try to avert the further fall of mankind into decivilization and try to help build a society that is no longer dependent of the remains of the past.
And I would do what I could to find out what destroyed the hypergate-network, to reestablish it and to make sure that something like this calamity never happens again.

4370

Suggestions / Re: Multiplayer Suggestion, A.K.A 'OH GOD NO'

« on: September 04, 2012, 02:46:43 PM »

I believe its a new suggestion. It involves reversing the role of the player and the AI, relatively simple as far as I know except for coding an AI to be a fleet commander.

I don't expect any multiplayer to get in before release, post-release update/DLC is feasable.

It doesn't matter who is playing what role, as long as multiple games have to be synchronized it wont work. I would not count on any long term multiplayer solutions, but never say never.

Besides, that does not mean that I don't like your Idea, it would make an interesting mode IF there were a multiplayer part in the game.

4371

Suggestions / Re: Multiplayer Suggestion, A.K.A 'OH GOD NO'

« on: September 04, 2012, 02:36:09 PM »

Multiplayer is not feasible for technical reasons, I think the engine could not handle lag.

Is this MP-suggestion NO. 17?  I lost track.

4372

Suggestions / Re: Hull Mod: Re-calibrated Targeting Systems

« on: September 04, 2012, 02:28:10 PM »

It'd be interesting to see results if you added in advanced turret gyros (or dropped optics, or even both); remember, optics reduces turn speed.

Repeated 3 times, hullmods were Gyros, ITU and Optics, the Medusa did not move

Burst PD: 12-14s
PD: 20-22s
Tactical Laser: 19-26s
LRPD:23-32s

Burst PD with expanded magazines: 9-11 (only proxy charges are faster)

A clear improvement, turret turn speed has definitely more effect for fighter defense then I had anticipated.

To test this further I let the relevant hullmods compete, gyros vs. optics:
The results were weapon dependent:

With TacLaser:
Gyros: 21-23s
Optics: 1:46min!

With PD:
Gyros: 25-31s
Optics: 19-22s

So there is no clear winner, it seems to be best to try and compensate a weapons weakness with hullmods.
Well, the tests were performed with Talons, which are fast and have to come very close, so the turn speed had the advantage. But definitely don't combine TacLasers with only Optics if you want them to kill fighters.

do the test again, but this time move the medusa forward.

Doesn't make much difference, a little slower since the Medusa has 3 back- and 4 forward-facing turrets.

4373

Suggestions / Re: Hull Mod: Re-calibrated Targeting Systems

« on: September 04, 2012, 12:36:31 PM »

The statement

PD Lasers are terrible compared to Tactical Lasers

got me curious, so I conducted a little test, and the results really surprised me. I outfitted a Medusa with small turrets of a kind and stopped the time it needed to kill 2/3 of 3 Talon wings. Repeated 3 times, hullmods were ITU and Optics, the Medusa did not move.

Burst PD: 14-15s
PD: 20-22s
Tactical Laser: 26-45s
LRPD:33-35s

Ok, the PDs weakness got compensated best by the hullmods, but still, it's surprising what a little faster turn rate can archive.

4374

Suggestions / Re: Hull Mod: Re-calibrated Targeting Systems

« on: September 04, 2012, 10:04:40 AM »

Plus, PD Lasers are terrible compared to Tactical Lasers, so I don't see someone actually trying to go that route!

They might be great when you need the burst, like on phase ships. Best with expanded magazines. Could make a real fighter-killer.

4375

Suggestions / Re: Pictures for ship systems in Codex

« on: September 03, 2012, 04:50:53 PM »

What am I looking at? You made those?

e/ found them in graphics/icons/hullsys

I've got a feeling everything will work out.

4376

Suggestions / Re: Slight change to the EMP Emitter

« on: September 03, 2012, 03:40:05 PM »

Sounds sensible, but I'm not sure that weakness is not intentional.

4377

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: September 03, 2012, 03:27:38 PM »

Oh, and..it has been report before, but there is still a mix of meter and su when talking about distance. The target overlay speak of m and m/s, the advanced optics description of su (su being the correct unit, I believe).

4378

Bug Reports & Support / Re: The Typo Thread

« on: September 03, 2012, 02:56:22 PM »

Mission 2: For the greater Lud, last paragraph: The ISS Blackstar, .., encounters the enemy forces...

4379

Suggestions / Re: More differentiation for carriers

« on: September 03, 2012, 09:23:23 AM »

Maybe... well. If you had "Open" Flight Decks, it would improve the repair speed of ships in the occupied deck? So if you had an Astral repairing one fighter, it'd give it 100% increased repair speed (because of the two empty decks), if you had one open deck, it'd give both the occupied decks +50% repair speed.

Then we could toss in a Hull Mod that increases the repair speed of fighters, or one that adds an additional Flight Deck to the carrier to acheive the same process?

That might work for the Astral, but it would not help to set all those one-deck-carriers apart...

4380

Lore, Fan Media & Fiction / Re: The Lore Corner

« on: September 03, 2012, 09:01:04 AM »

I've got a question: Is there an official lore explanation why fighters get replaced in carriers?
I would imagine that you don't really buy fighters but more a Universal Access Chip. On it are the fighters blueprints and advanced DRM that keeps you from making more then a specified number of copies at a time. Since technological knowledge has degraded so much, there is no hope of overcoming and hacking the DRM. With the chip, fighter copies can be build quickly by small autofactories on carriers or stations. I'd guess the same would go for missiles and ammo.

Does this go in the right direction or is there a different explanation?