31
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Nexerelin v0.8.4b "War and Peace" (update 2018-09-30)
« on: November 20, 2018, 09:53:55 AM »The mod hasn't been updated for Starsector 0.9a yetBTW should we expect 0.9a version anytime soon?
Fractal Softworks Forum
- April 23, 2024, 08:10:20 PM
- 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.
32
Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 22, 2018, 08:20:31 AM »in order to do a tactical bombardment you'd need guidanceYou are bombing static targets at the surface of the planet. The only thing you need is to calculate a proper trajectory.
33
Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 21, 2018, 10:46:01 AM »All that said, I think "having things take time" could work. It does add a nice element of tension, but it has some downsides as well. In any case, that's not the direction I want to go; the choice for "upfront action, with cooldown as necessary" is a common element throughout many mechanics, rather than being a one-off choice for raiding.But not all actions are instant? "Transverse Jump" takes time to be used as far as I remember.
However, whether raiding takes time or is instant is not a qualitative difference, unless it really takes forever, right? All that would change is how far off you'd have to draw off the defenders before having a window to pull off a raid. If it's instant, that window is "get to planet without any fleets being within support range of it". If it takes time, that window just has a different distance attached to it. So theoretically, we could tune that support range to be whatever we wanted and have the same practical effect as "raiding taking time".But it's not the same way with comm sniffers, right? While in reality two cases are very similar: you are doing something illegal with some object and nearby fleets can stop you. So why raids come as instant action with cooldown and installing sniffers is a "having things take time" action?
34
Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 21, 2018, 06:39:30 AM »any sort of planetary raiding deserves a more interesting system than "spend fuel to raid"On this one I totally agree with Alex because "in context" this simple raiding feature gives you the very reason to actually fight planetary defenses.
Previously we had to find our own reason for fighiting (for fun, out of revenge, maybe bountines?) but now these defenses like fleets will actually be the things that stand between us and our precious raiding loot
35
Blog Posts / Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« on: August 21, 2018, 03:49:33 AM »
Regarding "cooldown VS time spent raiding" I think that actually spending time "raiding" would be a better soultuion. Reason is simple - raid is not an instant action and the whole operation shoudl actually take time. During this period one of teh combat fleets may come back home and interfere with the raid.
And yeah I remember the point about stripping the planet of defenses (not every planet has station, right?) but really you can just *** defense fleets off, make them chase you and then use speed advantage to to reach the planet faster than they do. This way you kind of lure them away and use the short window of time to raid. Should be quite easy to do with fast fleets with proposed mechanics but should be totally impossible IRL simply because "raiding takes time":
1. Land on the planet
2. Find storages and break into them
3. Pack the stuff
4. Transport stuff to ships
5. Take off and fly away
Also making raids actually "take time" you can introduce hullmods that would make the raids happen faster.
One more suggestion here assuming that raids take time and that some returning fleet can interrupt you - you can allow player selecting ships from the fleet that would actually do the raid (each ship would allow only so many marines to participate in the raid) while the rest of the ships can stay "active" and protect raiding party from all incoming fleets. This way you can make sure that some small interceptor fleet does not stop your 100-ship fleet from raiding. At the same time the ships you have selected for raiding will not be able to participate in combat in case enemy fleet interferes
And yeah I remember the point about stripping the planet of defenses (not every planet has station, right?) but really you can just *** defense fleets off, make them chase you and then use speed advantage to to reach the planet faster than they do. This way you kind of lure them away and use the short window of time to raid. Should be quite easy to do with fast fleets with proposed mechanics but should be totally impossible IRL simply because "raiding takes time":
1. Land on the planet
2. Find storages and break into them
3. Pack the stuff
4. Transport stuff to ships
5. Take off and fly away
Also making raids actually "take time" you can introduce hullmods that would make the raids happen faster.
One more suggestion here assuming that raids take time and that some returning fleet can interrupt you - you can allow player selecting ships from the fleet that would actually do the raid (each ship would allow only so many marines to participate in the raid) while the rest of the ships can stay "active" and protect raiding party from all incoming fleets. This way you can make sure that some small interceptor fleet does not stop your 100-ship fleet from raiding. At the same time the ships you have selected for raiding will not be able to participate in combat in case enemy fleet interferes
36
Mods / Re: [0.8.1a] Omnifactory Rebooted 2.2.3
« on: July 10, 2017, 01:34:32 AM »The issue with the cores is that in the previous version they dropped like candy out of the pinatas that are Remnant ships. Now, we barely get any... Like, full blown battle stations MIGHT drop ONEMy experience is that if you gather a big fleet of remnants and kill them altogether (for example 1 fleet with 5 allying fleets) then the drop rates will be quite good. You can easily get even alpha cores like that. Nut killing 5 fleets is quite hard (unless you run crusaders paladin ship, which is just built for extreme aoe action) =)
37
Modding / Re: ExperienceToLevel progression
« on: July 05, 2017, 10:03:17 PM »erikem,Wow! Thank you very much! Will try it out soon
I've created a sample here (https://gist.github.com/Trylobot/e742b7afb70e17f49f859399070cd510) of how I think such a mod could work (completely untested), I hope it gets you started.
- Trylo
38
Modding / Re: ExperienceToLevel progression
« on: July 05, 2017, 04:27:24 AM »Something quick and dirty that you could do is mess with this setting ("xpGainMult":1,) in the settings.json.Like I've said - I'm already using it. Something like x10 for levels 40-60, x20 for level 60-80. But these come as different mods, which I enable and disable by reaching a certain level.
39
Modding / Re: ExperienceToLevel progression
« on: July 04, 2017, 08:49:42 PM »Just off the top of my head? You could create a mod script that multiplies your experience gains as a player, so that they are boosted after a certain level, which would effectively alter the experience-per-level curve in whatever way you choose.Thx for the answer!
I was thinking of this as well and actually I currently have few mods, which I simply enable or disable based on certain level threshold. These mods indeed increase experience multiplier.
Unfortunately I haven't got a slightest idea on where to start with writing a script, which would make experience boost dynamic based on level. Can you suggest a nice example to have a look at or topic to read?
40
General Discussion / Re: Any way to make carriers fight properly "by default"?
« on: July 03, 2017, 10:09:30 PM »
Here is the save used:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/obm5rg67hvn0w7w/Medusa%2BDrovers.zip?dl=0
Some conclusions
From movement and positioning perspective:
So far it seems that "implicit escort" (even when there are just 2 carriers following some "flagship") only endangers carriers. Instead of staying in a galaxy far, far away they may literally ram their primary target if flagship they are following does some tactical movement (it can be evasion, outmaneuvering, charge or anything else). Furthermore when flagship retreat - carriers lag behind him, effectively staying closer to the enemy than flagship.
I can see how "implicit escort" can help carriers, which are already in trouble or maybe slow carriers. But for carriers, which can actually maintain distance with most enemies (you can as well add unstable injectors and officer with "helmsman" to further increase their speed) "implicit escort" is harmful.
I'd suggest either removing "implicit escort" for now or redesigning it to make sure it never harms carriers and player
From fighters engagement perspective:
Still the best solution is either to use a fleet of carriers only (with some bombers on board for now, but hopefully fighters are as aggressive in latest build as bombers) or give a direct "fighter strike" command.
Also if there are no "fighter strike" commands and all carriers do their "implicit escort" it seems that targeting enemy indeed influences fighter engagement behaviour.
I suggest to force carriers into level 4 aggressive engagement mode by default, unless they are manually or by some commands (avoid, capture, retreat, got to waypoint, etc.) withdrawn. This means that if there's a valid target within their fighters engage range - they will engage it.
From all the tests so far carriers employ optimal movement and engagement strategies only when both are true:
1. They are aggressive towards their targets (either by "fighter strike" commands or because they have bombers)
2. They don't have anyone to "hide behind" using "implicit escort"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/obm5rg67hvn0w7w/Medusa%2BDrovers.zip?dl=0
Some conclusions
From movement and positioning perspective:
So far it seems that "implicit escort" (even when there are just 2 carriers following some "flagship") only endangers carriers. Instead of staying in a galaxy far, far away they may literally ram their primary target if flagship they are following does some tactical movement (it can be evasion, outmaneuvering, charge or anything else). Furthermore when flagship retreat - carriers lag behind him, effectively staying closer to the enemy than flagship.
I can see how "implicit escort" can help carriers, which are already in trouble or maybe slow carriers. But for carriers, which can actually maintain distance with most enemies (you can as well add unstable injectors and officer with "helmsman" to further increase their speed) "implicit escort" is harmful.
I'd suggest either removing "implicit escort" for now or redesigning it to make sure it never harms carriers and player
From fighters engagement perspective:
Still the best solution is either to use a fleet of carriers only (with some bombers on board for now, but hopefully fighters are as aggressive in latest build as bombers) or give a direct "fighter strike" command.
Also if there are no "fighter strike" commands and all carriers do their "implicit escort" it seems that targeting enemy indeed influences fighter engagement behaviour.
I suggest to force carriers into level 4 aggressive engagement mode by default, unless they are manually or by some commands (avoid, capture, retreat, got to waypoint, etc.) withdrawn. This means that if there's a valid target within their fighters engage range - they will engage it.
From all the tests so far carriers employ optimal movement and engagement strategies only when both are true:
1. They are aggressive towards their targets (either by "fighter strike" commands or because they have bombers)
2. They don't have anyone to "hide behind" using "implicit escort"
Thank you all for helping! I really appreciate the opportunity to easily reproduce poor AI behaviors and fix them.You are welcome. And thank you for this brilliant game =)
41
General Discussion / Re: Any way to make carriers fight properly "by default"?
« on: July 03, 2017, 09:48:41 PM »
Here are some extra videos based of drover carriers on vanilla Starsector to display the behaviour I have described in:
In every scenario all carriers had identical load-out:
http://i.imgur.com/HKNPEog.png
In all cases there was just one enemy - Eagle.
1. Drovers alone: fighter strike
Video:Scenario:
No Flagship
2 Carriers (Drovers) receive a direct "fighter strike" order at Enemy (Eagle)
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers stay away from their target at roughly fighter-engage distance.
Somehow they get much closer to the Enemy in the middle of the fight (maybe they were chasing him? but still they got way too close) but later they increase the distance again. In longer fights this change of distance seems to happen by some pattern: further-closer-further-closer...
Fighters strategy:
Carriers manage their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of their Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
2. Medusa + Drovers: fighter strike direct
Video:Scenario:
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun
2 Carriers (Drovers) receive a direct "fighter strike" order at Enemy (Eagle) after establishing "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Carriers manage their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of their Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
3. Medusa + Drovers: target selected (R-button)
Video:Scenario:
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun while having Enemy (Eagle) selected as target
2 Carriers (Drovers) don't receive any direct orders. The only order they have is the "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Once Flagship selects Enemy as his target (R-button) carriers start managing their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of the Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
4. Medusa + Drovers: no target selected
Video:Scenario:
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun while not having any target selected
2 Carriers (Drovers) don't receive any direct orders. The only order they have is the "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Carriers use their fighters for defense only (they might kill someone if this someone gets too close though). Level 1 passive engagement
Further:
Towards the middle of the fight I select Enemy (Eagle) as a target and you can see that Carriers engage him with fighters immediately. They switch to level 4 aggressive engagement.
After some beating I deselect Enemy and although unwillingly at the beginning, Carriers finally withdraw their fighters and switch back to Level 1 passive engagement.
I will evaluate passiveness/activeness of fighters by a scale from 1 to 5, where:
1 = super-passive, self-defense only
2 = mostly defensive with lazy attacks from time to time on a distance much shorter than "maximum engage range"
3 = kind of hit'n'run tactics at medium range with no constant pressure. Wings still tend to stay idle a lot
4 = optimal engagement at maximum range, fighters are withdrawn for the purpose of full regroup only (wait till full wings are reproduced) and then engage again. This seems to be the best tactics for them unless you want them to go all suicidal with fighters
5 = full engage, never withdrawing (except for bombers). Kill or die.
1. 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders = 1
2. 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders = 4
3. 2 Carriers with any engage-capable wings, direct "fighter strike" command = 4
4. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 1
5. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 1
6. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 2
7. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 3
8. Manually controlled carrier with "engage" command always on = 5
In every scenario all carriers had identical load-out:
http://i.imgur.com/HKNPEog.png
In all cases there was just one enemy - Eagle.
1. Drovers alone: fighter strike
Video:
Spoiler
[close]
No Flagship
2 Carriers (Drovers) receive a direct "fighter strike" order at Enemy (Eagle)
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers stay away from their target at roughly fighter-engage distance.
Somehow they get much closer to the Enemy in the middle of the fight (maybe they were chasing him? but still they got way too close) but later they increase the distance again. In longer fights this change of distance seems to happen by some pattern: further-closer-further-closer...
Fighters strategy:
Carriers manage their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of their Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
2. Medusa + Drovers: fighter strike direct
Video:
Spoiler
[close]
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun
2 Carriers (Drovers) receive a direct "fighter strike" order at Enemy (Eagle) after establishing "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Carriers manage their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of their Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
3. Medusa + Drovers: target selected (R-button)
Video:
Spoiler
[close]
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun while having Enemy (Eagle) selected as target
2 Carriers (Drovers) don't receive any direct orders. The only order they have is the "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Once Flagship selects Enemy as his target (R-button) carriers start managing their fighters in an extremely offensive way and make a short work of the Enemy. Level 4 aggressive engagement
4. Medusa + Drovers: no target selected
Video:
Spoiler
[close]
1 Flagship (Medusa) just flying around, having fun while not having any target selected
2 Carriers (Drovers) don't receive any direct orders. The only order they have is the "implicit escort" at Flagship
Carriers positioning and movement:
Carriers follow "implicit escort" movement pattern, get in a way and depending on how I move Flagship can even ram Enemy. Very dangerous for weak Carriers
Fighters strategy:
Carriers use their fighters for defense only (they might kill someone if this someone gets too close though). Level 1 passive engagement
Further:
Towards the middle of the fight I select Enemy (Eagle) as a target and you can see that Carriers engage him with fighters immediately. They switch to level 4 aggressive engagement.
After some beating I deselect Enemy and although unwillingly at the beginning, Carriers finally withdraw their fighters and switch back to Level 1 passive engagement.
42
Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Extra System v0.2.0a -JUST FOR TEST-
« on: July 03, 2017, 08:16:01 PM »
Never tried this mod but for sure wanted to have a feature like this in game. Like said above - it gives a nice sinkhole for extra resources and money and makes it much harder to get to the ultimate stage.
Actually I really think that what Starsector currently lack is an RPG/development part.
Actually I really think that what Starsector currently lack is an RPG/development part.
43
General Discussion / Re: Any way to make carriers fight properly "by default"?
« on: July 03, 2017, 03:01:16 AM »
Some further study (no videos).
I will evaluate passiveness/activeness of fighters by a scale from 1 to 5, where:
1 = super-passive, self-defense only
2 = mostly defensive with lazy attacks from time to time on a distance much shorter than "maximum engage range"
3 = kind of hit'n'run tactics at medium range with no constant pressure. Wings still tend to stay idle a lot
4 = optimal engagement at maximum range, fighters are withdrawn for the purpose of full regroup only (wait till full wings are reproduced) and then engage again. This seems to be the best tactics for them unless you want them to go all suicidal with fighters
5 = full engage, never withdrawing (except for bombers). Kill or die.
1. 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders = 1
2. 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders = 4
3. 2 Carriers with any engage-capable wings, direct "fighter strike" command = 4
4. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 1
5. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 1
6. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 2
7. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 3
8. Manually controlled carrier with "engage" command always on = 5
So the sad conclusion is that even bomber wings won't help your carriers become truly efficient (level 4 engagement) if there's a flagship to "hide behind"
Other observed behaviour is that once carriers choose a target to engage they stay a distance from that target only and they disregard all other enemies. This can cause a situation when a carrier seems to rush in suicidal ramming, while in reality he was simply getting closer to his target, which is behind the enemy lines. I think this can happen when carrier has targeted some front-liner and then this front-liner started kind of retreating and thus pulling carrier closer and closer to the other ships, which have not retreated
I will evaluate passiveness/activeness of fighters by a scale from 1 to 5, where:
1 = super-passive, self-defense only
2 = mostly defensive with lazy attacks from time to time on a distance much shorter than "maximum engage range"
3 = kind of hit'n'run tactics at medium range with no constant pressure. Wings still tend to stay idle a lot
4 = optimal engagement at maximum range, fighters are withdrawn for the purpose of full regroup only (wait till full wings are reproduced) and then engage again. This seems to be the best tactics for them unless you want them to go all suicidal with fighters
5 = full engage, never withdrawing (except for bombers). Kill or die.
1. 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders = 1
2. 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders = 4
3. 2 Carriers with any engage-capable wings, direct "fighter strike" command = 4
4. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 1
5. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters only, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 1
6. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), no target selected by Flagship = 2
7. Flagship + 2 Carriers with fighters and bombers, no orders (indirect escort), target selected by Flagship (not in tactical view but simply by pressing R) = 3
8. Manually controlled carrier with "engage" command always on = 5
So the sad conclusion is that even bomber wings won't help your carriers become truly efficient (level 4 engagement) if there's a flagship to "hide behind"
Other observed behaviour is that once carriers choose a target to engage they stay a distance from that target only and they disregard all other enemies. This can cause a situation when a carrier seems to rush in suicidal ramming, while in reality he was simply getting closer to his target, which is behind the enemy lines. I think this can happen when carrier has targeted some front-liner and then this front-liner started kind of retreating and thus pulling carrier closer and closer to the other ships, which have not retreated
44
General Discussion / Re: Any way to make carriers fight properly "by default"?
« on: July 02, 2017, 10:26:15 AM »@erikem:You are very welcome. Please let me know if you need some more tests like these performed for further study.
This is awesome, thank you!
45
General Discussion / Re: Phaeton, overpowered?
« on: July 02, 2017, 03:45:22 AM »
Just a quick comment: Valkyries are even better than Phaetons.
Valkyrie costs same 3 DP to deploy but it has:
55 OP against 45 of Phaeton
3500 hull against 2000 of Phaeton
400 armor against 350 of Phaeton
Front shield, while Phaeton has omni shield of the same arc (it's worse than Phaeton here)
44 shields upkeep against 75 of Phaeton
0.8 shield flux/damage against 1.2 of Phaeton
2250 flux capacity against 2000 of Phaeton
110 flux dissipation against 150 of Phaeton (it's worse than Phaeton here)
80 top speed against 50 of Phaeton
Valkyrie does not have civilian-grade hull hullmod
Valkyrie costs same 3 DP to deploy but it has:
55 OP against 45 of Phaeton
3500 hull against 2000 of Phaeton
400 armor against 350 of Phaeton
Front shield, while Phaeton has omni shield of the same arc (it's worse than Phaeton here)
44 shields upkeep against 75 of Phaeton
0.8 shield flux/damage against 1.2 of Phaeton
2250 flux capacity against 2000 of Phaeton
110 flux dissipation against 150 of Phaeton (it's worse than Phaeton here)
80 top speed against 50 of Phaeton
Valkyrie does not have civilian-grade hull hullmod