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 - senor

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
Suggestions / Re: Pilot Crew
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:48:56 AM »
@Cosmitz:  Yea i know i can set the order to determine what quality crew they get, and im fine with that.  it just bugs me that im using crew, really.

@Vind:  I dont recall getting "staggering losses" unless you're flying talons and wasps into a real blender of gunfire.  Even then you'll run out of spare fighters, saving you from losing too many men.  Besides crew are cheap to buy green and it's not difficult to get them trained up a bit outside of fighters, especially with the crew XP skill.

I really think Wasps should be one bigger tender, with no guns or perhaps just a single PD Laser, that controls 6 drones with moderate roam radius and slow regen, personally.

That would totally fit the concept; you save crew by having some cruddy robots go fight for you.  Too bad 1-fighter Wings aren't a thing, and it'd take an AI flag that I don't think exists atm.  I'd certainly pay lots of Logistics for a two-pack with 12 drones, though.

i actually like this idea for a ship, sounds cool.  Though i think it already exists in the Shepherd frigate.

17
This is partially related to and inspired by this thread by Mystic: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=9057.0

I had an idea recently about sensor detection in the navigation/"over-world" mode that I think could be a good addition to the game.  Basically it has to do with a balance of "Ship Signature" (how easy a ship is to detect in space), "Environmental Effects" (navigation map objects like asteroid belts, the local star, planets, wormholes, etc), and "Sensor Strength" (power of and skill at using your long range sensors).  The end result would not simply be "you see them completely or "you dont see anything", but instead be a range of different amounts and types of information, but more on this farther down.

Your base Ship Signature would primarily have to do with the physical size class of the ship (frigate through capital) and the equipment of the ship like a phase system, shield system, or lack there-of.  Ideally Ship Signature would be increased and decreased by character skills / hull mods that you have learned / equipped.  Skills might be advanced jamming techniques or fleet formations that help hide your fleet.  Hull mods could increase Ship Signature by increasing engine power or adding a shield generator, and decrease Ship Signature with sensor jamming and stealth/low-observable systems (or removing a shield generator).

Environmental Effects could also factor in by blocking line of sight between ships either completely or partially.  Your distance from another ship/fleet is certainly a factor, but also being very close to a planet or within an asteroid belt should provide some amount of coverage from sensors.  A planet or local star that blocks line of sight between two ships might completely block detection between them, or might just very heavily obscure it, because in reality communication and detection signals are often used without line of sight by signals bouncing off things like the atmosphere, or light bending around stars and planets.  Being inside a nebula could also affect sensors, perhaps having a larger effect on Sensor Strength, than it does on Ship Signature, or maybe making ships inside a nebula easier to detect.  There could be different types of nebulas that each hinder or enhance Signal Strength or Ship Signature.  I'd rather have entire star systems be either in or out of a nebula, because in reality they are extremely large.

As Ship Signature may be determined by several things, Sensor Strength is determined by several as well.  Obviously, first is the power of your equipped sensors as different ship hulls could have different sensor strength stats (ie the Apogee might have strong sensors).  Next would be modifications to those sensors via hullmods and character skills, described as increased power or special sensor types (would be cool to have a mod/skill that increased "range" of your sensors but necessarily the strength, to see how that would factor into the math mechanics of all this).  Finally, your skill at using those sensors would be affected by character skills and crew experience (just as other ship stats are increased by crew level).

Sensor/detection results as mentioned eariier would ideally be given as different amounts of different kinds of information, probably given as mouse-over tool-tip text and icons.  If you're able to detect the target fairly well, you could see some of the ship hull icons just as in vanilla with text like "We are detecting one capital ship, two cruisers, several frigates and multiple fighter or bomber wings".  For simplicity this could be boiled down a bit, showing the hull icons for whatever size classes of ships that are detected well enough, with a list of the number or approximation.  For instance the icons for the Onslaught capital ship and Dominator cruiser would show, with a fuzzy static icon with "Cr." on it for the second cruiser, a wide blob of fuzzy static with "Frigates" for the frigates, and another blob with "Wing" or "W." or "F/B" or something for the fighters.  The list next to the icons could read like "Capitals: 1, Cruisers: 2, Destroyers: None, Frigates: Several, Fighter Wings: Multiple" to help clarify and organize.  When you can barely detect something no ship icons are shown and the text gives a description like "One or more unidentified ships (if your sensors officer didn't think they were ships he probably wouldn't point it out).  As you get closer/better detection of the target the tooltip would still have no icons, but the text would read something like "Several large ships, approximately of cruiser class size, and many smaller size ships".  Finally when you're able to completely detect the target you can see every ship and fighter wing icon with text like "We are detecting one capital ship, two cruisers, two destroyers, four frigates and six fighter or bomber wings" (in this example, the destroyers were hardest to detect, and were not seen earlier) or, again, the text description may simply be a list of each number of size class.

In a nut shell detecting a ship through these mechanics is done like so: your ship's Sensor Strength value (modified by skills, hull mods, and crew) is influenced by Environmental Effects (distance and if you're in a nebula), and then compared to the target's Ship Signature value (as modified by skills and hull mods) which is also modified by Evironmental Effects (amongst asteroids, near or behind a planet or star).

A relatively more complicated issue is detecting fleets. A simple and practical way to determine a fleet's Sensor Strength is just to use the best you have, and if you have two that are good, but one is better in nebulas (and you're in one) then the game just uses that ship's Sensor Strength.  Ship Signature for fleets should be on a per-ship basis, to work with the detection results described previously.  This might be complicated by a possible character skill relating to fleet formations allowing small ships to hide amongst larger ships in your fleet, thus lowering the smaller ships' Ship Signature stats, but that's more of a complication with having a skill like that.

Congrats if you made it through all that, what do you think?

TL;DR Ship detection in the overworld / navigation mode based on Sensor Strength versus Ship Signature stats affected by base ship hull size and Sensor Strength stat, hull mods, character skills and environment.

18
Suggestions / Pilot Crew
« on: February 12, 2015, 02:28:45 PM »
Quick suggestion for a separate crew type for fighter and bomber wings, obviously called "Pilots".  Thematically i think it makes more sense rather than pulling Joe Schmoe from capital ship engine maintenance to go fly a Talon and dogfight against enemy craft.  I would also prefer it to having to choose what crew experience i want them taking away from my larger ships.  Obviously it would be great if Pilot crew gained XP like ship crew, but maybe only while piloting fighter and bomber craft?  or perhaps they have some simulators or training sorties they do behind the scenes?

19
Announcements / Re: Starsector 0.65.2a (Released) Patch Notes
« on: February 10, 2015, 03:48:21 PM »
UPDATE!!! WOO-HOO!  Thanks Alex and whoever else is working on these official releases, keep up the great work!

20
Bug Reports & Support / Phaeton ship sprite
« on: February 09, 2015, 08:43:24 PM »
The red fuel tank section of the hull is not centered on the engine, and does not appear to be intentional.  And it bugs me.

21
General Discussion / Re: Starsector Ship Tiers
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:51:13 PM »
i dont have much specific feedback of my own, but i love this thread.  Xyphos really that good?  i havent really used them in a while, but my xyphos and wasps often used stay just out of range of their target,  uselessly firing their beam weapon and not hitting it.

22
General Discussion / Re: Which freighter to use
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:42:46 PM »
possibly because the chart is old, but a good metric for freighting stuff is speed x cargo and fuel efficiency.

23
Suggestions / Re: Carrier Hanger Space
« on: February 06, 2015, 10:41:53 PM »
Regarding a Hound or other frigate sized ship having hangar capacity.  Based on an art image the hound is way too small to hold any fighters, much less manufacture one.

http://fractalsoftworks.com/2013/02/05/painting-the-hound-and-the-hangar/

24
Suggestions / Re: Ability to target items in campaign layer.
« on: February 06, 2015, 10:37:54 PM »
I like the idea.  I'm all for it.  I imagine something of the sort will be added eventually.

25
Suggestions / Re: Carrier Hanger Space
« on: February 06, 2015, 01:33:06 AM »
Wasn't the old hangar system just "this is how many fighters you can have, if you go over this number Bad Things happen?"

If there's one thing bringing back the concept of hangars (they don't even have to exist as an actual value, just a lore thing) would be good for, it's abolishing the concept of fighter burn speed. The values are generally faster than most ships and the Navigation bonuses are identical to that for frigates anyway, so it mostly serves as UI clutter. When it doesn't and a fighter wing ends up slowing the fleet down (this happened to me in SS+ with Claymores), it's very annoying (OMG why can't you just ride in the carrier and go the same speed as everyone else?!)

"What about if an AI fleet only has fighters left?" Then it should just die, like the player fleet already does.

Admittedly, i guess that means they would also not be able to fight in hyperspace-zone battles...
You could just decree that fighters can move about in hyperspace like everyone else, but can't transition between normal space and hyper without a carrier.
Although requiring a carrier (as in "has a flight deck") is probably too punitive and not necessary for lore/theme purposes - I imagine you could just strap the fighters to any random hyper-capable ship for the jump.

good points, thanks for the feedback.  especially the part about them slowing the fleet down.  i think that happened with me with some tridents.  OMG was that annoying.  in fact i think that's what made me wish for a hangar system, which made me want to come suggest this in the first place.  i ended up forgetting that by the time i had typed this up though.

Edit: come to think of it, it is strange from a fiction point of view for fighter wings to be flying around on their own for very long, or being strapped to a hull.  Eventually the pilots would need to get out a rest, get food and water, etc.  The idea that some larger ship hulls have unlisted docking bays for logistics purposes doesnt really cover it i think, because a Hound for example certainly cant dock a fighter.  there's that concept art showing a Hound in a hangar bay and it's way too small to be holding a fighter inside.

From an immersion standpoint, i think fighters need to all have somewhere to land for quite a while, especially if they're going to be recovering from damage and losses during or between battles.  i dont see how a small frigate or destroyer sized carrier can be holding all the replacement fighter craft that they can launch.  And in order to properly recover from damage between battles it's gotta be more costly in time and resources to not have a proper, large enough flight deck.  Flying around in EVA suits tinkering with flights of fighter craft that are strapped to the outside of a tanker hull sounds really impractical and expensive.

26
Suggestions / Re: Shield subsystem idea
« on: February 05, 2015, 05:55:18 PM »
Here's the main background lore-post, IIRC: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2011/02/21/the-state-of-affairs/

cool, thanks ill look that over.

27
Suggestions / Carrier Hanger Space
« on: February 05, 2015, 05:39:05 PM »
I forget precisely how the old hanger space/capacity system worked, but I really wish it was back.  Id rather fighters had to dock in carriers to travel in hyperspace.  Admittedly, i guess that means they would also not be able to fight in hyperspace-zone battles...

i guess i like the idea of fighters being in hangars not flying around solo constantly.  maybe it's just me.  I miss it.

28
Suggestions / Re: Multi-Lock Targeting
« on: February 05, 2015, 05:32:37 PM »
We all know the issue when it comes to having all your missiles try to follow around a hyperion while an onslaught is sitting in front of us venting flux and all of our LRMs will just continue to follow that stupid hyperion. Multi-Lock Targeting would fix this. By allowing differing targets for each individual weapon group, we can split up different missile groups or even projectile weapons so that large battleships can focus on the multiple targets simultaneously without having their firepower split up between 6 frigates that we can't hit while getting torn apart by the enemies high damage support ships.

Note: I am not just advocating multiple targets for missiles, but also for projectile weapons.

Tell me what you think and whether or not this is a good idea. Especially you Xenoargh, because I KNOW you're gonna have a say in this. :P

sounds good to me, im all for it.  weighting system for auto-fire sounds alright too, but if i had to pick one, id rather be able to manually lock what and when i want.

29
Suggestions / Re: Shield subsystem idea
« on: February 05, 2015, 05:27:35 PM »
Don't septuple post, please. Double posting is frowned upon, especially when you can delete posts, so 7 posts is just ridiculous.

I believe the lore of Starsector is such that building new types of spaceships is beyond the technical capabilities of anyone in the Sector. They just don't know how to make many of the key systems a Sector ship needs to operate. That almost certainly includes hyperspace equipment, shield generators, and many if not all weapon systems.

ah, my bad about the posting, i dont come here often.  just wanted to make sure i responded to people.

good to know about the lore.  Now that you mention it I think I read some that a while back.  Not sure where to find stuff like that though, dev blogs?

30
Suggestions / Re: Shield subsystem idea
« on: February 05, 2015, 03:14:20 PM »
Dat essay. ;)
We're all guilty of it sometimes. :P

Not me, clearly.   :P

Quote
I use quite a few Thunders, so I've seen plenty of EMP lock-downs.

I never supported EMP damage to shields or through shields. Nor do I support EMP damage to the shield generator after the shields are down. It would be bad gameplay design for Starsector; we both see that.

EMP can be powerful, yes.  Adding a shield generator hard point that is vulnerable to EMP could be risky, yes.  But it's only bad gameplay if implemented carelessly.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4