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 - Morbo513

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21
Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] Blackrock Drive Yards v0.8.6 - UPDATED! (12.01.2017)
« on: January 12, 2017, 10:34:27 PM »
I have to congratulate you on this mod, I can't believe I played SS for an entire year without trying it. The ships look great, are fun to use and challenging to fight without being unbalanced; the backstory, system design and music, it's all great. What I'd most like to see more of is corvettes and gunships (In Starsector in general as well as the mod). I really like the Robberfly, so much so that they comprise 90% of my fleet. They're very versatile and can punch well above their weight especially in numbers, but they trade massive vulnerability for their speed and relative firepower. This is some A-Grade stuff, thanks for putting in the time and effort to make it.

Suggestions / Re: Fighter movement
« on: June 30, 2016, 08:54:12 AM »
satellites don't need to be able to dodge projectiles though.

the way fighters move in the game obviously implies more than one engine. the OP doesn't really know what he's talking about.

now that i think about it you'd need three assuming a non-turret primary weapon

"rudder" placed off-center in front or back to rotate your nose to track enemy as you orbit
lateral thruster to move sideways
primary thruster to keep from leaving the circle and to cushion against weapon recoil

I know perfectly well that for a space ship of any kind to be able to function in general, let alone combat, it'd need thrusters for movement in all six directions. I should've made it clearer in the OP; I'm not disputing that fact - though lateral/vertical thrusters would most likely be weaker, meaning slower acceleration in those directions. Anyway, my point is that the way they fight in Starsector isn't reflective of how they do so in any other representation of space combat, or real/simulated examples of naval aviation (Not that old and modern aircraft had any other option - speaking of which, even helicopters will generally attack in a dynamic fashion rather than trying to slug it out with whatever might return fire.). Restricting their movement is a simply a suggestion as to how to achieve the behaviour that I'd see as appropriate for small ships fighting larger ones that out-strip them in every way except speed.

Go play Freespace 2 and try to beat any level that has you fighting capital ships by circle-strafing them. In that, you also have vertical and lateral thrusters but none are as powerful as your main engine. You can't rely on them to effectively evade, or get you out of range of their guns before you take significant damage - for that, you need to point your ship and its main engine in a direction and go forwards. So, as it translates to attacking capital ships or even bombers with turrets - You fly towards the target, do your damage, turn back and fly away at full speed before you can be destroyed.

Suggestions / Re: Formations
« on: June 29, 2016, 10:38:08 PM »
1) While I really like the idea of formations, there are a number of reasons why they will probably never make it in. One big reason is that individual ships are constantly trying to close or back off based on whether they have the advantage or not.

2) One idea that might work is very rigid, close formations. Each formation would act like a meta-ship and only move as fast as the slowest ship.

... an hour of thinking, typing, and distractions later ...

3) Not so formation-y, but changing the escort command might go a long way. Split it into guard, escort, and follow: guard tries to stay between the target and enemies; escort tries to fight alongside the target; follow tries to keep the target between itself and enemies.

Numbered cause cba splitting quotes

1) Is there any reason this couldn't extend to formations as well as individual ships, ie that behaviour is disabled for member ships and is deferred to the leader

2) Not a fan of this, mainly cause it doesn't account for the maneuverability and speed of the ships in a formation. The formation leader is the pivot point for its members, so it'd be wonky if I led a formation containing cruisers in say a Kite - unless, of course, the formation's rotation speed is changed based on the speed, maneuverability and distance of the "pivoting" ships, but this would cause problems if ships in the formation, especially the leader, have fixed-forward weapons.
This, however, could be the basis of a formation system. Those rigid points would be the movement targets of ships in the formation.

3) I'd welcome this irrespective of formations, at least as a stopgap measure.

General Discussion / Re: In-battle CR Timer - Why It's Bad
« on: June 27, 2016, 07:51:30 PM »
I like SS+'s way of limiting fleet size by supply consumption, which can be upgraded with the fleet logistics skill IIRC, rather than limiting players to a certain number of ships; when a ship that fills one of those 25 slots can be anything from a Hound (D) to an Onslaught it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Suggestions / Re: AI-controlled omni-shields
« on: June 26, 2016, 07:38:05 PM »
This has been suggested before many times and it is basically no. Hell, even LOCKING shields is out.
Alex post from the frequently suggested suggestions Thread:
Yeah, I've read that post. It addresses shield locking, not AI-controlled shields. Same issue, different solution. Setting all weapons groups to autofire was something I hadn't considered, but autofire is rescinded when you have that weapon group selected. There's a further problem with this in that if you have fixed-forward weapons, aiming by steering is much more awkward than steering by mouse, and by steering with the mouse you're also keeping the shield oriented forwards.

Suggestions / AI-controlled omni-shields
« on: June 26, 2016, 12:01:24 PM »
This'll be my shortest post yet! I find omni-shields difficult to use; Unlike the AI, we're unable to orient the shield in a different direction to the one in which we're pointing our guns. Having a control to hand off... control of the shield's orientation to the AI would be a godsend. It could also be a hullmod but I'm torn on that idea.

Suggestions / Re: Battle joining range
« on: June 26, 2016, 11:55:06 AM »
There could just be an additional radius around each fleet indicating that range. If the radii intersect the fleet radius, they can join one another.

Really like the suggestion of having friendly fleets being able to join a battle in progress. There should be an indication of whether they're going to do so though.

Suggestions / Re: Small suggestions
« on: June 26, 2016, 11:45:26 AM »
Agreed on all except the changes to hyperspace nebulae - Navigating them is pretty easy if you're not chasing or being chased - you'll often be through them by the time they storm up, and as long as you're not accelerating time you'll be able to react to them doing so before you hit them. There's usually a "warm-up" period where it begins to glow bright, but there's no storm. Flying through one during this period (Depending on how early you hit it and your burn speed) is a good way to lose a tailing fleet.
However as you said, AI pathfinding is an issue here. Not really sure how it works exactly, but a nebula cloud that's about to storm up should have a big "don't fly through here" sign for AI.

Is there a way to increase the rate at which a station/planet's shipyard will refresh its inventory? If I'm using SS+, Nexerelin and Dynasector, which of these if any will I need to make the change to?

Oh cool, I wasn't aware, though as far as I've experienced they can't be damaged by enemy fire. Still torn on it balance wise; When everything else is failing, the shield is usually the last thing that can help you survive, and having that subject to weapons fire might make such situations too punishing.

Suggestions / Re: Formations
« on: June 26, 2016, 11:14:20 AM »
how are you supposed to react if you start to become encircled?

a circle is a line tooo


every example of formations you've given can be described with lines, not a single one of them has 'depth' exactly because the tanks need shooting space to be effective.

A pincer is a maneuver and more often a strategic one at that, not a formation.
in that case i would like to rephrase and state i would love to see a game where u can implement maneuvers.

I'm torn as to whether I should bother dignifying this with a response. Since I've already started typing I might as well.
You see a """"line""" that dynamically bend based on criteria as an ideal solution*. If each of those formations can be described as a line, there's your implementation. So essentially you're supporting the same thing. Could do with a rephrasing of that second paragraph cause it doesn't make a right lot of sense to me.
As for maneuvers, yes. The games I mentioned allow you to perform maneuvers by giving your units orders. The elements that maneuver are in formations.

Now that I think about it, don't drones and fighter wings already stay in formations?

Another (relatively) short one: Communications, sensors and certain hullmods which add functionality (Eg. Dedicated targeting core) would be subject to malfunctions and disability in the same way as engines and weapons.
If communications are disabled, no orders can be given to that ship until they're back online - furthermore, any ship that can only be "seen" by one with disabled comms would not be shared with the rest of the team (ie player). If the player's ship's comms are disabled, it would prevent giving orders to any other ship.

When sensors are disabled, the afflicted ship is unable to target enemy ships, nor can it reveal enemies on the command map, ie use its sensors.

Shields is an iffy one, potentially messing with game balance a bit too much. It'd probably have to have an extremely low chance of being disabled, or repaired relatively quick.

Ship systems (ie phase skimmer/cloak, accelerated ammo feeder etc) is equally iffy, and would probably require delicate balancing for each.

As for hull mods, it's hard to list which ones would really fit with this. DTC/ITU, Advanced Optics, ECCM are the only ones I think would be logical.

All this would go towards making EMP weapons much more dangerous, mind, as well as combat in general and low CR.

Suggestions / Re: Formations
« on: June 26, 2016, 10:10:43 AM »
since ships can shoot 'through' one another and lacking 3 dimensional implementations the only logical formations are lines (straight or curved) because any ship 'behind' another ship is useless
Of course a ship in another one's line of fire is going to prevent it from firing - that's a drawback of formations, but that applies equally to having them roam freely. Lines are useful if you want to maximise forwards fire-power, but they're extremely vulnerable on their flanks. There'd be no point in having a formation system if the only one you can use is a line - how are you supposed to react if you start to become encircled?

as for the value of formations in true combat, the value of a formation is not the formation itself (the static part) but the cycling (the dynamic part) where formations alter ..... a pincer is only worthwhile AFTER the horns close, a phalanx is only useful when the shield bearers are constantly replaced as they fall and the spears are constantly rotated as they break.
A pincer is a maneuver and more often a strategic one at that, not a formation.
Anyway, formations are put to use in pretty much all aspects of modern warfare* - odd as it sounds, tanks are probably the closest to combat in SS - They're also subject, probably more than any other vehicle (or infantry), to friendlies in the possible line of fire, and no ability to change elevation beyond what their immediate surroundings allow to mitigate it. And that's the entire point of being able to switch to a different formation on the fly.
 The wedge is fairly ubiquitous, as are the line and file. Each of them vary in balance between forwards firepower and flank security.
What you're saying about phalanxes doesn't really apply - Those are formations comprised of the numerical equivalent of an infantry company, fighting with a specific type of melee weapon. Modern small-unit formations generally don't account for "cycling" members, because they're designed for every member to be in a position to respond to threats.


as far as i know, no game has ever included formations in a dynamic fashion, aka in a useful fashion. If you have any suggests as to how to implement formations dynamically, please tell.

ArmA series, Ground Control, World in Conflict, IIRC Wargame, I'm 99% certain the Total War series had them.

Regardless of all this, half the point of the formations system is that your AI-controlled ships that you set to escort would maintain one with you - what the possible formations we could use isn't as important as making sure they stay close to you, are able to engage when you are and fall back as soon as you do.

realistically you'd need an enormous system built into the ai to handle it. theoretically it would be useful to be able to build frigate wedges bulwarks of gunships supported by spheres of carriers and missile cruisers, etc.

my wager is it'd take a year finagling to get it to work properly, though
I've little doubt about that, but suggestions cost nothing to make; Ultimately it's up to the dev as to whether it's worth implementing. I'd be happy with having the two most ubiquitous formations, the wedge and line, be available.

Discussions / Re: Brexit Wins
« on: June 26, 2016, 09:38:40 AM »
The most prevalent arguments from both sides were pretty much full of rhetoric based pretty much on sensationalised speculation. I'm not happy with the status quo, nor am I sufficiently well-informed to be able to decide for myself whether my country leaving the EU was a better option. I'd say the vast majority of people who did vote are in the same proverbial boat, the difference is I acknowledged it. I personally think referendums are nonsense for this reason: The public of pretty much every country are too subject to sensationalist media - educating ones self on the subject of the referendum is not a prerequisite to voting on something with such far-reaching ramifications.

Completely agree; the referendum itself was a mistake.

However abstaining from voting because of this principle is compounding the problem, as you're delegating your vote to the general populace - a populace who is (on average) even less qualified to make an informed decision.
And I'm indifferent as to the outcome. If I were leaning either direction, it was towards leave but not by much.

Suggestions / Re: Fighter movement
« on: June 26, 2016, 09:36:17 AM »
fighters are worthless. unless you want to double or triple their speed and firepower there is no reason to reduce their already weak movement profile.
I've seen plenty of fighters that can punch well above their weight, although I'm using mods and not familiar enough with the base game to tell what's vanilla or not when it comes to fighters at least. Regardless, that's the point; These restrictions on their movement would force them forwards to strafe their targets rather than staying back as capital ships do, and I imagine their AI would have them turn back once they get too close, then come in for another attack. Their speed should be variable of course, but never to the point of stopping. If they need to be made faster overall to be effective with this behaviour, I don't see that as a problem.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21