Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

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.

Messages - DatonKallandor

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48
676
Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 6.4 (0.6.1a)
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:20:49 PM »
Yeah, but i think i did smth wrong with it - i don`t see fighter hulls at all now  ???

That's not that bad really. It makes fighting fighters less of a crapshoot because they can't turn into 1k damage missiles randomly (especially when the hulk spawns on top of your ship because they don't have collision while alive).

It does mean some of the fighters might need a buff since on the whole they'll just be less effective in combat than they used to without the huge unintended damage spikes.

677
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 17, 2013, 05:00:57 AM »
Minimum level for a hard area doesn't mean you can't enter it, it means no matter how low level you are when you enter it the enemies won't be weaker than a certain minimum level for that area. It guarantees that a hard area is going to be hard, unlike a scaling area with no min and max caps.

678
Suggestions / Re: A great idea! (probably not, actually)
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:47:08 PM »
Which makes this easy to tie into a reputation system.

A pirate who lets freighters who dump their cargo voluntarily run away gets a reputation for doing that, which would mean freighters are more likely to drop their cargo for him.

A Pirate who kills freighters who dump their cargo gets a reputation for being a *** - and freighters won't dump their cargo for him because they know he'll kill them anyway.

679
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:44:28 PM »
It would probably easier and more intuitive to introduce star systems that are "harder", with better ships, better loot and better AI. Something you a player can work up to and choose to go to, rather than leveling up the starting system mooks alongside the player. The world leveling with the player is really bad, and generally the solution to fix it is to provide upper and lower caps to the leveling world that differ between regions (see the difference between Oblivion and Fallout New Vegas - the latter has "hard areas" that start at a high minimum level, and have no cap so they're always a challenge).

680
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 16, 2013, 01:29:42 PM »
True but it still comes down to "do I have enough money to repair? sell supplies" if you've got it running off money. And "do I have enough supplies to repair? buy supplies" if it runs off supplies. Of course if the Trader and the Repair Docks are on two different stations that are a decent distance apart....

681
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 16, 2013, 10:53:47 AM »
I particularly like the idea that repairs at a station cost money, not supplies. this would balance the money/supply balance issues we have now.

Would it though? Unless there's a new kind of station that only does repairs and nothing else all repairs at stations costing money does is add an extra step the player has to perform - selling some supplies. Supplies for all intents and purposes are money, because the same place that repairs you also exchanges money to supplies (and supplies to money) at a fixed rate, instantly.

682
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 16, 2013, 10:04:15 AM »
Except that supply cost and starting game difficulty is somewhat connected.  If you can't find that lone buffalo, lancer, or hound to pick on in the beginning, you need to survive long enough to be able to do so, and often that boils down to "you cannot afford these supplies, so... you're going to die."

Lowering supply value would also help to solve the issue of the late-game moneyflood, in where you can just pile on more money than you know how to spend simply because supplies are worth so much.

I'd argue that's more a symptom of the fact that the game is missing all layers except for the combat ones and it's starting you off with a frigate, which in pure combat terms, responds the least well to bad control by the player. If there's more ways to make money that aren't straight combat the high price of supplies doesn't hurt new players - especially if some of those ways are methods to generate supplies to sell them (mining/trading/diplomacy/exploration/etc).

683
Suggestions / Re: Suggestions to improve difficulty ramp and stuff.
« on: October 16, 2013, 09:15:54 AM »
Most of this is on the right track. While early game is incredibly difficult for new players it really isn't that connected to the supply cost or CR system - the game is just incredibly difficult at the start, especially for new players. So it's a good idea to stop treating those two things like they're connected and start dealing with them both separately.

On the topic of CR recovery/mothball reactivation and station repair: I think fleets should really get a massive boost to CR recovery or a massive penalty to CR drain when stationary. It's really strange that you can repair your barely alive ships, refit them, change hullmods and reactivate skeleton-crew mothball ships while going full burn and maneuvering. Having to sit still to get your ships back up to full CR quickly and efficiently (less supply needed per CR regained when stationary or using shipyard help?) would make a lot of sense and make system map maneuvering a little more dynamic (pirate fleets fleeing at low CR and staying at low CR because they're fleeing, professional mercenaries standing still and recomposing after every fight with a pirate fleet).

684
Suggestions / Re: Boarding: remove ships escaping
« on: October 16, 2013, 08:15:36 AM »
What I don't like about boarding in general is that there is no way to come to terms with your victims. I'd like to be a pirate without slaughtering everybody. Mh...

Absolutely agree - it would be kind of nice if freighters who got their escort killed, are low enough on CR to go into "last stand engage" mode surrender their cargo and run away instead. It's not like the old surrender where you got free ships, but it means taking out escorts (and having escorts!) actually means something for a convoy. And it rewards a good leader/pilot who focuses his fire on the escorts, because a freighter that gives up his cargo voluntarily is going to have more loot than one you had to blow up and salvage.

There's even room for a more campaign oriented reputation hook: If you're the kind of captain who accepts surrendering freighters cargo and blasts them afterwards you get punished - since freighters in that system/from that cargo-company will stop offering their cargo, because they know you'll just shoot them anyway.

685
Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 6.3 (0.6.1a)
« on: October 16, 2013, 08:05:10 AM »
Yeah some mods might need some buffs or changes if you do one mod per category - but that might not be a bad thing anyway. And making skills unlock the ability to use more mods per category sounds awesome too.
As an aside since you're modding ship design systems - how about upping Extended Missile Racks to 100%. It'd simplify the math for the player and get rid of some edge cases (1 capacity missiles for example). 100% would give a clear and easy to estimate benefit to every kind of missile weapon. It'd also make sure there's no partial volleys with extended racks (as long as the base missile weapon doesn't have partial volleys built in).

686
Mods / Re: Project Ironclads, version 6.3 (0.6.1a)
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:52:01 AM »
Hullmods limited by one per category?

687
General Discussion / Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« on: October 15, 2013, 03:58:06 PM »
No frigate has that kind of power anymore, thanks to the CR decay in battle (or ammo limits in case of Lasher and Brawler).  Tempests also cost so much money (slightly less than Hyperion) that three Lashers or Wolves are a better deal for all-around grunt work.

That is simply untrue. The Terminator Drone is far more powerful than the Tempests stats suggest - it's a teleporting, phase cloaking, self-replicating fighter with IR pulse laser and burst PD. It's mobility also means they stack much better than anything - more terminator drones become exponentially more powerful because they don't get in each others way.

As for the Hyperion: It can teleport at more than a screen range an unlimited number of times with no cooldown and carry enough firepower to wipe ships two size categories higher out in one volley. It's peak combat time is more than adequate to do all of that within the allotted timespan. In fact the change to peak combat time to make it less punishing (it only ticks down when a frigate is actually doing something) probably means the Tempest needs an even shorter peak time. There simply is no more powerful ship in the game period, which is why it such a high deploy cost, purchase cost and upkeep cost.

If you're fighting every in-game day you're better off with an equivalent logistics capacity of lashers yes. Working as intended - low/mid-tech ships are workhorses that are rugged enough to be useable over and over again without rest. But for that one single first battle high-tech ships like the Hyperion and Tempest will produce far better results. They just can't repeat those results if there's a follow up battle.

688
General Discussion / Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« on: October 15, 2013, 12:45:53 PM »
Supplies should not cost so much.  Too expensive to buy, too expensive to fully repair a ship, yet too profitable if much more can be obtained then needed.  Supplies need to be cheaper.  Bigger ships eat too many supplies to recover CR.  Ships seem to eat more supplies than before, and freighters are almost required to pick up enough salvage to profit.  Problems with CR and supplies are linked.

Deploying high tech ships costs too much CR, unless the ship is the flagship with max Combat (for -30% CR cost).

The whole point is that you need a freighter to haul away the loot if you wanna make a profit. That's what freighters are for. That's not a symptom of the CR/Supply system not working, it's an indicator that it is working perfectly.

Ditto for high tech ships costing a lot of CR - that's the whole point. The are stronger than equivalent mid-tech ships - and high tech is very hard to keep working in a post-apocalyptic setting. Deploying your super-ultra-high-tech battleship shouldn't be a "I'll do it every battle" thing, it's something you think about. Because if you deploy it now you might not be able to deploy it again tomorrow or the day after that.
For example, the only thing keeping the Tempest even remotely in check is it's crazy high CR loss per deployment - but for that one battle you use it it's a force multiplier like nothing else in space, able to take out entire fleets. That kind of power comes at a cost, and that cost is literal, you know, cost.

It also means you can always challenge yourself to defeat any given enemy with ever smaller and cheaper deployments - and the better you, your tactics and your ship designs are, the more profit you get out of any given fight. A big fleet using only a small part to fight makes a much bigger profit - but it obviously also has to pay for the ability to bring in extra reserves if the fight goes badly somehow. It does that by having a higher upkeep than a smaller fleet made up of exactly the right amount of ships.

689
I'd love just a simple readout that tells me the armor/hull/CR of all currently deployed ships. Having to click every single unit just to see if they need retreating is not exactly optimal.

690
General Discussion / Re: Carriers and other questions
« on: October 09, 2013, 03:05:55 PM »
Mining Pods are slower than carriers. It really kind of sucks that they're flying along next to the carrier instead of being, you know, carried.

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48