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.

31

Suggestions / Re: Boring "combat" skills

« on: November 17, 2013, 08:51:12 AM »

Alex has noted that the skills are not in their final state, need rebalancing/adjusting, and also that when you do hit level 10's part of the design philosophy is that you are supposed to be overpowered in comparison to the AI.  (Although if/when AI Admirals have levels that could change...)

With that being said, I think this is a great Idea.  I like the thought that your 'combat skills' have a larger impact on smaller crew (Hull? why give extra bonuses to high-tech ships) while your leadership and logistics skills have a larger impact on larger hulls (or more hulls, or more officers...); and your technical skills might be equal across all hull types and sizes.

Alex, while the OP's idea may not be implemented in the next few patches please consider it when you revisit character skills.

32

General Discussion / Re: Carrier

« on: November 17, 2013, 08:43:16 AM »

Plus the PD drones can provide a fairly effective missile defense allowing you to equip something besides flak cannons (Heavy Maulers or HVDs anyone??)   This allows the Gemini fend off any pesky Hounds that slip by with ease.    I'm 100% in favor of Gemini vs any Carrier, especially when up against a Logistics limit.

33

Suggestions / Re: Set standard LR to 50%

« on: October 28, 2013, 02:11:02 PM »

Fully agree, but I don't think logistic bonuses for small fleets would be no-brainers at all. They would not provide any in-combat benefits, so a small fleet with tech or combat aptitude would be superior in a fight. Even for hypothetical small not combat oriented trade fleets things like speed (tech tree) might be more important.
The only kind of small fleet where I really see investment in LC as superior are long-range explorers which need a high grade of autonomy. But this is all very speculative.

Uh... that doesn't match what you suggested at all!  Your suggestion - tying LC to CR - would make combat capability, in the form of CR, very much tied to having a high LC, even as a small fleet.

Having Logistics provide benefits to long range explorers is something else entirely - you'd need to make the skill, I dunno, reduce maintenance costs of ships/crew, instead of increasing logistics limit, for it to have that effect.  Or maybe a perk that increases cargo capacity.  And that I'd be totally on board with.

Also remember we haven't seen officers yet, there may be Supply, Communications, etc Officers that add bonuses to LR or otherwise enable a larger fleet without having to put points into leadership. (But then if your crackerjack Supply officer ends up dying when you lose that Tarsus to a well-timed Reaper, well...oops.)

34

Bug Reports & Support / Re: Keep running out of memory when trying to enter a system from Hyperspace

« on: October 18, 2013, 12:55:31 PM »

Just want to say - replacing the packaged 32-bit java with 64-bit java (version 7 update 45) and changing to 1024 2048 (from 1024/1024) worked wonders for myself with Ironclads mod.  Haven't tried it with Uumoz's Corvus or Exerelin but it completely cleaned up the 'hangs' on loading/deloading large battles, changing systems, etc.

35

General Discussion / Re: Laptop performance?

« on: October 16, 2013, 11:41:24 AM »

With an i5 2.4ghz and Gforce GT540M/1gb video card on my laptop starsector vanilla is ~mostly~ bug free for me, large mods have the hang/lag/memory problem but that sounds like it's more of a java problem than anything else. 

36

General Discussion / Re: Does target leading/rate of fire/recoil affect beam lasers?

« on: September 25, 2013, 03:20:44 PM »

well, for recoil beams if a beam had less than perfect accuracy (some mods this is true) then it would matter but for vanilla it does not at all.

37

Bug Reports & Support / Re: White starfield background

« on: September 24, 2013, 12:43:36 PM »

This bug occurred for me, too just now with 0.6 vanilla.  Jumped to hyperspace fine, jumped back to Corvus and the starfield background was 100% white, jumped back to hyperspace and hyperspace starfield was OK, back to corvus and still 100% white.  Also when I 'saved and exited' the splash screen was mostly white, i.e. still had the same bug with the background.

Didn't see anything obvious in the log file.

Haven't tried to replicated/modify the vparams file yet, but I did do that for some of the larger mods with 0.54 and it solved some of the lag problems for me there.

38

Suggestions / Re: Auto-targeting fire mode

« on: September 09, 2013, 03:27:49 PM »

I really like this idea a lot.  I absolutely agree with the idea and would love to see it implemented.

edit: 
Question the first, how would this work if the AI was not currently targeting a unit?  Would the weapons fire wherever they are pointing or would they not fire?   One one hand, it would be a waste to unload your opposite broadside on a Conquest into empty space.  On the other, maybe you're strafing in a Falcon and plan to walk the shots from your hardpoint onto the target. 


Question the second, how would it work if you had weapons at different ranges?  Would you still fire your Heavy MGs in an Eagle when only the Phase Beams are in range?

- My assumption for both is that it would 'lock' the weapon from firing unless the AI was actively willing to shoot the weapon and waiting for you to give the fire order.

39

Suggestions / Re: Additional variables for explosion size

« on: July 18, 2013, 08:20:42 PM »

Alex said that the player nor the enemy is supposed to know what cargo is in what ship - otherwise if you've got a Tarsus and the enemy destroys that, POOF there goes all your supplies. Same goes for Fuel.

Well, using all these variables would be fancy and would mean seeing into a fleet's inventory, but I guess one hacky way to do it is just code fuel tanker ships to explode larger than their ship size.  At the end of the day, my main complaint is that a small explosion from a fuel tanker ship seems immersion-breaking for me.

40

Suggestions / Re: Additional variables for explosion size

« on: July 18, 2013, 05:58:59 PM »

I always assume that while some fuel doesn't burn, the majority does

41

Suggestions / Additional variables for explosion size

« on: July 18, 2013, 05:25:31 PM »

So this is something that's been bugging me for a little while.  Every time I take out a Dram I expect a massive explosion as those lovely fuel tanks are breached.  Sadly, all I see is the standard tiny frigate sized explosion

My suggestion:  Make explosion size dependent on a few more variables in addition to ship size.  My list would include:
-current fuel
-current supplies (i.e. ammo)

Some other ideas I'm not wedded to but could be fun:
-armor (more armor = smaller explosion as it would be contained, this would add to the 'pop' of civilian vessels)
-flux capacity (more flux = more boom)
-burn speed (more engines = more boom???)

There should be some probability function to modify the original explosion size for each of these, so sometimes you get a big boom, sometimes the normal or smaller.

42

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Update

« on: July 08, 2013, 10:22:03 AM »

Right - Better PD is needed on low-tech or else missiles would crush them, high-tech use shields + worse PD instead.

43

Suggestions / Re: Squadding system

« on: July 06, 2013, 07:24:59 PM »

The AI already changes a ship's role automatically depending on weapon loadout somewhat. 

44

Suggestions / Re: Cargo Explicity

« on: June 30, 2013, 05:53:22 PM »

I think(?) the idea is to increase the cargo cost for weapons by a large factor, such that only freighters can efficiently carry loose weapons i.e. loot while every ship can carry a modicum of supplies.   The original post seemed to be working to this idea with a different way of implementing it.


One way to hack this is keep a nicer combat ship like an enforcer in your fleet with only one weapon installed; then when you loot a weapon you install it rather than put it in a freighter.

45

Suggestions / Re: Formations?

« on: June 26, 2013, 03:31:36 PM »

One comment (question?) I have is something I noticed while playing today.  I assigned an enforcer and fighter wing as wingmen to my onslaught, and naturally the enforcer moved into the lower left (8 o'clock) position as I advanced towards the enemy.  When I stopped, it moved into the 9 o'clock position.  However, then something interesting happened.  While keeping my facing "up" (12 o'clock) towards the enemy I reversed my ship to lengthen the engagement time as enemy fighters were bearing down.  To my surprise, the enforcer decided to circle around in front of me crossing my bow and then moving back down into the 3 o'clock position on my now right flank.  When I stopped, it circled some more through 6 and back into the 9 o'clock position.

My question:  Is this how escort behavior is supposed to work?  Just random that it decided to circle around me?  What were the logic rules used to decide it's positioning:  escort behavior defined or just dodging missiles and other enemy fire?

My suggestion:  If this is deliberate escort behavior, I would judge the rule is "stay to the left (or right) of current escort target vector, regardless of target's heading / firing angle.  I would love to see this changed to something that

1) takes into account the escort target's firing solution:  Am I as an escort in the way of the target's guns?  If I am larger than the escort target, I stay in the way: there is probably an enemy farther out that I need to block.  If I am smaller, I should move out of the way!

2) takes into account the escort target's engines and armor damage.  Is there a damaged armor side?  Move to that angle so I act as a piece of armor for my escort target.  If not, get between the engines and the enemy if the enemy gets close enough.

3) Still defaults to a line abreast or delta formation if no enemies are close enough.