571
Suggestions / Re: Sandbox Type Gamemode
« on: February 26, 2012, 07:10:40 AM »
I would love a sandbox battle mode of this nature, especially if we could refit things for it.
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 24, 2024, 04:51:04 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Save/Load UI, Autosave, Intel Map Markers, and More (04/10/24)
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.
572
Suggestions / Re: Defence Vs. Offense
« on: February 25, 2012, 11:56:42 AM »
Which PD in particular?
Lasers can be easily overwhelmed, but flak or dual flak can destroy whole waves of missiles.
Smaller ballistic PD tends to just miss everything though. A micro-flak cannon would help immensely for that.
Lasers can be easily overwhelmed, but flak or dual flak can destroy whole waves of missiles.
Smaller ballistic PD tends to just miss everything though. A micro-flak cannon would help immensely for that.
573
Modding / Re: Adding custom ships
« on: February 25, 2012, 08:30:31 AM »Not so sure about the hangar area
I hope you don't take this as overly critical, and indeed it's a lovely ship in general, but I preferred the hanger area in your previous drawings of it. I think the raised + colourful tail in this latest version stands out a bit too much, and I liked the way the diagonal struts and launch-ramp-maybe? part drew the eye downwards, giving it a sense of speed.
574
Suggestions / Re: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.
« on: February 24, 2012, 03:27:37 PM »
I have two hopefully useful ideas to contribute to this, especially relevant to some of Beagle's points:
First, I believe that there should be a Forbid Ship order that stops a ship from being considered for a given assignment. Sometimes I really, REALLY don't want a certain ship doing a certain thing, because I think it'll get itself killed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I should be given the option
- this would cost 1cp just as Assign Ship does. However, see my second idea below:
When you are creating a -new- order (which you pay 1CP for as usual), you should be able to use the Assign Ship command to freely assign ships to that order, and the Forbid Ship order to freely forbid things. As soon as the order is actually okayed and set, it starts costing command points to shift things around, but in essence this would mean that your stock of command points will actually translate into that many assignments, consisting of whichever ships you want, and you can either spend more time OR NOT as desired. Personally I usually think the AI does a fine job of assignments, but there are occasions when I want to tweak it, and I don't really like being charged for that as I'm defining an order, because it feels like double costing. "Someone Attack that cruiser... No, I meant... YOU Specifically! attack that cruiser", wheras I believe most commanders would just say "You! Attack that cruiser".
If everyone thinks that's really too much, then another possiblity would be only unassigned ships can be assigned for free, but I do think free assignments (at order creation, never free after) should be trialled if it's not a big deal to try it - It's not all that different from now after all, and then I would suggest a lowering of the amount of general command-points to balance.
I also really like the idea that the bigger or more suited for command a ship you use as your flagship, the more you get. (Perhaps there should even be a hull-mod, Expanded CIC, but that does seem a little overspecific)
Anyway, what does everyone else think?
First, I believe that there should be a Forbid Ship order that stops a ship from being considered for a given assignment. Sometimes I really, REALLY don't want a certain ship doing a certain thing, because I think it'll get itself killed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I should be given the option
- this would cost 1cp just as Assign Ship does. However, see my second idea below:When you are creating a -new- order (which you pay 1CP for as usual), you should be able to use the Assign Ship command to freely assign ships to that order, and the Forbid Ship order to freely forbid things. As soon as the order is actually okayed and set, it starts costing command points to shift things around, but in essence this would mean that your stock of command points will actually translate into that many assignments, consisting of whichever ships you want, and you can either spend more time OR NOT as desired. Personally I usually think the AI does a fine job of assignments, but there are occasions when I want to tweak it, and I don't really like being charged for that as I'm defining an order, because it feels like double costing. "Someone Attack that cruiser... No, I meant... YOU Specifically! attack that cruiser", wheras I believe most commanders would just say "You! Attack that cruiser".
If everyone thinks that's really too much, then another possiblity would be only unassigned ships can be assigned for free, but I do think free assignments (at order creation, never free after) should be trialled if it's not a big deal to try it - It's not all that different from now after all, and then I would suggest a lowering of the amount of general command-points to balance.
I also really like the idea that the bigger or more suited for command a ship you use as your flagship, the more you get. (Perhaps there should even be a hull-mod, Expanded CIC, but that does seem a little overspecific)
Anyway, what does everyone else think?
575
Suggestions / Re: Need more scrap rewards?
« on: February 20, 2012, 03:14:27 PM »
I'm sure he will revisit it at some point, but I thought the topic could benefit from a bit more discussion from us as well, so he can see what the vocal minority think of how it is at the moment.
I like Ghoti's scale, and assuming most of the fleet has been disabled, I personally would favour a low 3, possibly even a 2.5 depending on how phyrric the victory was.
Maybe there can be an option for this actually, since post-battle repair / board / scrap chances sound like something that might actually be quite -easy- to change with difficulty level options, as another possibility to fiddling with the actual battle damage numbers.
I like Ghoti's scale, and assuming most of the fleet has been disabled, I personally would favour a low 3, possibly even a 2.5 depending on how phyrric the victory was.
Maybe there can be an option for this actually, since post-battle repair / board / scrap chances sound like something that might actually be quite -easy- to change with difficulty level options, as another possibility to fiddling with the actual battle damage numbers.
576
Suggestions / Re: List what the weapon is strong against
« on: February 20, 2012, 01:42:40 PM »
Many of the weapon descriptions already mention this.
It would be nice to have a reminder somewhere more obvious (perhaps in tiny text underneath the large damage type icon itself?) but I think it's not impossible to learn from the various descriptions as-is.
It would be nice to have a reminder somewhere more obvious (perhaps in tiny text underneath the large damage type icon itself?) but I think it's not impossible to learn from the various descriptions as-is.
577
Suggestions / Re: Ship customizer and battle simulator
« on: February 19, 2012, 05:57:59 PM »
Thanks - I would probably have never found it otherwise
578
Suggestions / Re: Ship customizer and battle simulator
« on: February 19, 2012, 03:48:30 PM »
How do you get access to dev mode? I had a look but I couldn't find it... am I just being dumb and missing something somewhere?
579
Suggestions / Yet Another Fighter Repair Suggestion
« on: February 19, 2012, 03:46:21 PM »
There have been a few of these, and there's one on the main page but it doesn't really cover this, so I thought I'd make a new thread for it, hope that's okay.
After playing 0.5, I also think that it's a little odd that fighters can be endlessly restocked in combat, but normally longer than most frigates to repair outside of it.
I'm also annoyed that carriers can repair a wing if it has only 1 left, but not when it has none.
I'd like to suggest something a little different for carriers, as a result:
Carriers should have a resupply bar / ammo or supplies store, that is drained whenever a flight docks to resupply. Restocking weapons should cost only a little of this (strike weapons more, probably - maybe something keyed of total damage per ammo?) but replacing entire fighters should take a significant chunk. If a wing is totally destroyed but the carrier has enough supplies remaining, you could issue an order to the carrier (costing a command point as usual) to Scramble Backup Fighters (Search and destroy should also do this automatically, for no order cost - the downside being you don't get to choose when, it always does it). This would cost a vast chunk of supplies, possibly all remaining, but put the wing back into the fight at whatever strength the carrier can muster with the remaining supplies. If there are more than one destroyed wing, it should pick the first in the fleet list for simplicity and coherance with how the preference system currently works. New crew should be drawn from any spares - if you don't have spare pilots, no extra fighters either, but carriers usually carry a fair number of crew so I doubt that would be a problem.
Ideally, this supply storage would be a new statistic for all carriers, and one which could be increased via expensive hull mods. If that's not plausible, then carriers with more supply storage or flight decks (or both) should have more of thes in-mission supplies.
After a mission, fighter groups are only damaged if the available carriers could not repair them with supplies left over. If they are damaged, same as it currently is. Carrier supplies would take a while to restock after being used, several days of in-game time most likely, representing rebuilding spares. It would also eat through generic Supplies at a horribly fast rate (because they cost money!), and count as repairs to the carrier.
Bitty details such as matching supplies to the wings you have on hand, or each carrier carrying different types of fighters should all be abstracted out, I don't think that level of detail is necessary or sensible for Starfarer - but now that we have a campaign mode, a bit more detail on carriers would be good.
In summary, what I intend to achieve through this is that single-deck light carriers should probably be able to repair and rearm a slightly damaged fighter wing three or four times in a mission, or (perhaps partially) replace it once.
On the other hand, destroying a wave of fighter squadrons from that shiny, full-stocked Astral isn't going to permanantly take them out of the fight. Give the carrier a bit of time to prep the next sortie, and it will send them out again, possibly two or three times, before you've finally dealt with them. Perhaps if this seems too annoying strikes on the carrier should also stop it refreshing fighters or reduce available supplies.
As to why you can't send them all out at once and blot out the stars? Well, I have a few justifications, but that's all they are. Primarily, the main reason is game balance. In-game, you could assume that yes, you have for example 12 Talons total, but only 4 are ready to launch at any given time, and when the battle started, that was the 4 who were on-deck. When they dock, it's actually a different 4 (with the same pilots perhaps, or perhaps not) who are sent out having been prepared just before. Also, it's difficult to maintain proper comm links and tactical feeds for more than the number of fighter wings you actually own, and the 'price' for buying fighters is more the price of a new set of tactical gear and several replacement fighters, not just the ones that fly on a given sortie. As a side effect, this would make fighters much less disposable, because if the carrier didn't die, they should be fine even if the wing was totalled - you always have the option of not sending out the replacements. Most of the cost should also be transferred onto owning the carrier, as it would use a lot of supplies, so fighter wings themselves should perhaps be made slightly cheaper.
After playing 0.5, I also think that it's a little odd that fighters can be endlessly restocked in combat, but normally longer than most frigates to repair outside of it.
I'm also annoyed that carriers can repair a wing if it has only 1 left, but not when it has none.
I'd like to suggest something a little different for carriers, as a result:
Carriers should have a resupply bar / ammo or supplies store, that is drained whenever a flight docks to resupply. Restocking weapons should cost only a little of this (strike weapons more, probably - maybe something keyed of total damage per ammo?) but replacing entire fighters should take a significant chunk. If a wing is totally destroyed but the carrier has enough supplies remaining, you could issue an order to the carrier (costing a command point as usual) to Scramble Backup Fighters (Search and destroy should also do this automatically, for no order cost - the downside being you don't get to choose when, it always does it). This would cost a vast chunk of supplies, possibly all remaining, but put the wing back into the fight at whatever strength the carrier can muster with the remaining supplies. If there are more than one destroyed wing, it should pick the first in the fleet list for simplicity and coherance with how the preference system currently works. New crew should be drawn from any spares - if you don't have spare pilots, no extra fighters either, but carriers usually carry a fair number of crew so I doubt that would be a problem.
Ideally, this supply storage would be a new statistic for all carriers, and one which could be increased via expensive hull mods. If that's not plausible, then carriers with more supply storage or flight decks (or both) should have more of thes in-mission supplies.
After a mission, fighter groups are only damaged if the available carriers could not repair them with supplies left over. If they are damaged, same as it currently is. Carrier supplies would take a while to restock after being used, several days of in-game time most likely, representing rebuilding spares. It would also eat through generic Supplies at a horribly fast rate (because they cost money!), and count as repairs to the carrier.
Bitty details such as matching supplies to the wings you have on hand, or each carrier carrying different types of fighters should all be abstracted out, I don't think that level of detail is necessary or sensible for Starfarer - but now that we have a campaign mode, a bit more detail on carriers would be good.
In summary, what I intend to achieve through this is that single-deck light carriers should probably be able to repair and rearm a slightly damaged fighter wing three or four times in a mission, or (perhaps partially) replace it once.
On the other hand, destroying a wave of fighter squadrons from that shiny, full-stocked Astral isn't going to permanantly take them out of the fight. Give the carrier a bit of time to prep the next sortie, and it will send them out again, possibly two or three times, before you've finally dealt with them. Perhaps if this seems too annoying strikes on the carrier should also stop it refreshing fighters or reduce available supplies.
As to why you can't send them all out at once and blot out the stars? Well, I have a few justifications, but that's all they are. Primarily, the main reason is game balance. In-game, you could assume that yes, you have for example 12 Talons total, but only 4 are ready to launch at any given time, and when the battle started, that was the 4 who were on-deck. When they dock, it's actually a different 4 (with the same pilots perhaps, or perhaps not) who are sent out having been prepared just before. Also, it's difficult to maintain proper comm links and tactical feeds for more than the number of fighter wings you actually own, and the 'price' for buying fighters is more the price of a new set of tactical gear and several replacement fighters, not just the ones that fly on a given sortie. As a side effect, this would make fighters much less disposable, because if the carrier didn't die, they should be fine even if the wing was totalled - you always have the option of not sending out the replacements. Most of the cost should also be transferred onto owning the carrier, as it would use a lot of supplies, so fighter wings themselves should perhaps be made slightly cheaper.
580
Suggestions / Re: More involved, more enjoyable boarding.
« on: February 19, 2012, 03:10:38 PM »
Given we can customize the keyboard layout fairly heavily (for a while I was playing without turn on A and D, for example) I don't think QTEs are a good idea.
Also I personally dislike them, but the above reason is in my opinion a more solid reason to use!
Also I personally dislike them, but the above reason is in my opinion a more solid reason to use!
581
Suggestions / Re: Reactor breach.
« on: February 19, 2012, 03:08:32 PM »
Having recently killed my first capital ship (Astral carrier), I'd like to point out that the graphics -already- support such detonations. It was an amazingly pretty kaboom, and it really did feel worthwhile!
582
Suggestions / Need more scrap rewards?
« on: February 19, 2012, 03:06:56 PM »
I've been playing 0.5 for a bit (it is awesome and pretty much everything I'd hoped with the exception of a no-limitations ship builder, but that's not really relevant) and I got into a fight with a damaged Astral carrier - it wasn't quite fast enough to run away from me, even though it outran the hegemony.
Anyway, I managed to beat it, and even better got a chance at boarding it! Except, of course, my 10 marines were not sufficient - still I thought, no big deal, I only lost a hound to kill this, it'll be worth it anyway.
The only problem was it wasn't. I killed an entire capital ship with an arguably inferior fleet (I only won because it was already damaged) and yet the rewards were meagre - it dropped a single Large weapon and around 1500 worth of computer cores, not nearly enough to pay for the Hound I lost, and that was the cheapest frigate there is.
I've had similar issues where I lost some other frigate or a wing of fighters, and destroyed 4-5 enemy frigates. Occasionally they'll drop enough fuel and guns and supplies that it almost feels worth it, but it's usually still not enough to recoup any losses - and I considered these great victories, with a minimum of loss!
I'm aware that you want the loss of a ship to feel significant, but right now I think that fighting is -too- destructive. A scrapped ship is worth a pittance of its cost, and rarely drops more than a single weapon mount. For winning to mean progression, I think that either: They should drop more, possibly most of their weapon mounts, or alternatively they should drop more scrap credits. Personally I'd favour the first, as you can sell them for cash (but it's not worth full price) or more plausibly, use them on your own ships, expanding your arsenal depending on what you can manage to kill.
Anyway, I managed to beat it, and even better got a chance at boarding it! Except, of course, my 10 marines were not sufficient
- still I thought, no big deal, I only lost a hound to kill this, it'll be worth it anyway.The only problem was it wasn't. I killed an entire capital ship with an arguably inferior fleet (I only won because it was already damaged) and yet the rewards were meagre - it dropped a single Large weapon and around 1500 worth of computer cores, not nearly enough to pay for the Hound I lost, and that was the cheapest frigate there is.
I've had similar issues where I lost some other frigate or a wing of fighters, and destroyed 4-5 enemy frigates. Occasionally they'll drop enough fuel and guns and supplies that it almost feels worth it, but it's usually still not enough to recoup any losses - and I considered these great victories, with a minimum of loss!
I'm aware that you want the loss of a ship to feel significant, but right now I think that fighting is -too- destructive. A scrapped ship is worth a pittance of its cost, and rarely drops more than a single weapon mount. For winning to mean progression, I think that either: They should drop more, possibly most of their weapon mounts, or alternatively they should drop more scrap credits. Personally I'd favour the first, as you can sell them for cash (but it's not worth full price) or more plausibly, use them on your own ships, expanding your arsenal depending on what you can manage to kill.
583
Suggestions / Directional Armour
« on: June 24, 2011, 05:06:41 PM »
(I can't tell if this is already implemented, it might be, but if it is, I think it could benefit from being a bit clearer on the interface)
Currently armour seems to be evenly applied over the entire vessel. While this is very useful for many ships and does lead to some tactical maneuvering to get your armoured side absorbing more of the hits, it can be a little strange that (since you tend to lose your front armour first) most of the fight is spent -not- trying to point the front end with the most guns at the incoming enemy (unless you can deal enough damage instead).
Taking naval battleships and tanks as two vaguely-related analogies, they tended to have more armour on the areas they were expected to take hits on, and somewhat less at the rear or other areas expected to usually be protected. If it isn't already in, it would be good to be able to specify an armour weighting for a vessel, where a certain direction has more armour, and possibly another direction has less armour.
This would allow people to build ships which could absorb amazing quantities of damage at the front, but were very weak at the rear, or ships that were a little stronger than usual to the broadside but weak at front and rear, or whatever else they could think of.
As a display suggestion, either denser grid boxes where there is more armour, or possibly a further colour (cyan perhaps, as it's a bit further past green on the colour wheel) to show that the armour in that location is more robust.
(PS: I would have thought someone would have suggested this already, but I can't find it, so many apologies if the idea has already been raised and/or dismissed for some reason.)
Currently armour seems to be evenly applied over the entire vessel. While this is very useful for many ships and does lead to some tactical maneuvering to get your armoured side absorbing more of the hits, it can be a little strange that (since you tend to lose your front armour first) most of the fight is spent -not- trying to point the front end with the most guns at the incoming enemy (unless you can deal enough damage instead).
Taking naval battleships and tanks as two vaguely-related analogies, they tended to have more armour on the areas they were expected to take hits on, and somewhat less at the rear or other areas expected to usually be protected. If it isn't already in, it would be good to be able to specify an armour weighting for a vessel, where a certain direction has more armour, and possibly another direction has less armour.
This would allow people to build ships which could absorb amazing quantities of damage at the front, but were very weak at the rear, or ships that were a little stronger than usual to the broadside but weak at front and rear, or whatever else they could think of.
As a display suggestion, either denser grid boxes where there is more armour, or possibly a further colour (cyan perhaps, as it's a bit further past green on the colour wheel) to show that the armour in that location is more robust.
(PS: I would have thought someone would have suggested this already, but I can't find it, so many apologies if the idea has already been raised and/or dismissed for some reason.)
584
Suggestions / 'F' camera-view, and pausing
« on: June 21, 2011, 01:08:38 PM »
Sometimes (mostly because I've still not learned to fly anything big with any degree of skill) I want to play a battle mostly in the War-room, and so to have a look at what's going on I often use the 'F' camera view.
I find myself often doing two things, and I wonder if there might be a smoother way:
First, I often press F to view something, view it for a bit, and then press Tab to go back into the war-room to check on something. Then I press Tab again to go back to where I was, but Tab doesn't do that! I meant to press F. I know that F cycles between different viewpoints from the same camera view, but I think I'd personally like that on another button, perhaps G, and F would be a dedicated toggle between war-room and camera-view. Does anyone else do this, or should I just learn the buttons better?
Secondly, I would often like it to -always- pause when I press Tab to go to the war-room to issue orders. If that could be added as an option at some point that would be wonderful - even better if the above is implemented, then Tab could mean "Go to war-room and pause" (or Go to Controlled Ship and unpause if you're already in the war-room), and F could be toggle-warroom, maintaining the current paused or unpaused state.
Minor things, and I don't know how easy they would be to separate like this, so I'm interested if anyone else thinks these would help, and so whether it would be worth it. The pausing thing would be my choice if I only got one, because sometimes I want and -need- to issue an order, but I forget that tab won't pause if I'm in F camera-view, so I lose a few seconds worth of armour from something being shot because of that.
I find myself often doing two things, and I wonder if there might be a smoother way:
First, I often press F to view something, view it for a bit, and then press Tab to go back into the war-room to check on something. Then I press Tab again to go back to where I was, but Tab doesn't do that! I meant to press F. I know that F cycles between different viewpoints from the same camera view, but I think I'd personally like that on another button, perhaps G, and F would be a dedicated toggle between war-room and camera-view. Does anyone else do this, or should I just learn the buttons better?
Secondly, I would often like it to -always- pause when I press Tab to go to the war-room to issue orders. If that could be added as an option at some point that would be wonderful - even better if the above is implemented, then Tab could mean "Go to war-room and pause" (or Go to Controlled Ship and unpause if you're already in the war-room), and F could be toggle-warroom, maintaining the current paused or unpaused state.
Minor things, and I don't know how easy they would be to separate like this, so I'm interested if anyone else thinks these would help, and so whether it would be worth it. The pausing thing would be my choice if I only got one, because sometimes I want and -need- to issue an order, but I forget that tab won't pause if I'm in F camera-view, so I lose a few seconds worth of armour from something being shot because of that.
585
Mods / Re: Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (in progress)
« on: June 20, 2011, 04:43:56 PM »For now I'm just grappling with how I want to display them. Ideally I'd like to be able to show this:
Captain Pike
Earthling Cruiser
I know it's a little late, and might not even matter in the end, but you might be able to get away with the current layout by making it a:
"Jameson Pike, Captain 1st"-class ship.
Then I believe it will read:
Jameson Pike, Captain 1st-class
Earthling Cruiser
Which isn't -too- bad, and also allows for other (presumably lower) classes of captain, or lieutenant, or whatever.