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 ... 19 20 [21]
Suggestions / Fighter movement
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:43:12 AM »
Not going to go too into detail with this one. I just don't feel fighters act naturally, part of the reason being that they can turn on the spot, reverse and strafe as every other ship can. The suggestion is this: Prevent them from strafing, reduce their turn speeds and only allow them to turn while moving forward. This should make their attacks appear more "dynamic" rather than just swarming around a target or staying at stand-off range until moving in to engage.

Discussions / Re: Brexit Wins
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:35:20 AM »
Personal preference to staying in or out. I'm completely on the fence, hence why I didn't vote.

This is an enormous mistake.

You simply can't be on the fence in such a far reaching decision; the result WILL(does) effect you, so you MUST(should have) vote(d).

If you are happy with the status quo, you vote IN.
If you are unhappy with the status quo (and think leaving the EU will improve things), you vote OUT.

Referendums should either be mandatory voting, or require an absolute majority.
Otherwise you get stupid *** like this happening, where the populist vote gets levied resulting in the passive majority being dragged along by a vocal minority.

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.

Suggestions / Formations
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:19:29 AM »
Formations are an essential part of naval warfare and combat in general. I don't see SS as an exception to this.
The idea is we'd be able to define ship formations in the Fleet menu, and set them in the in-battle command menu. When defining a formation, you'd get "nodes" that you get to place freely - each of them would represent a position in the formation. The first node would be the formation leader on which all other members would key off. With non-leader nodes, you'd be able to define whether they are to maintain a set heading in relation to the leader or if they're free to pivot within an arc you can set, or completely free rotation - furthermore, how far ships are allowed to range from the centre of their "node" or if they're to do their best to maintain that exact position. Additionally, you'd be able to set whether the formation is "dynamic" - where if a member of a formation is knocked out or told to retreat, the next "number" in the formation would fill its place, or "static" where they will maintain their relative positions.
 Then, when you've defined a formation, you can fill them with your ships via the fleet menu.

When it comes to formations and a player-controlled ship, you'd always assume the role of the formation's leader. Additionally, you'd be able to hotkey a number of formations so you can change them as the situation dictates. Additional hotkeys (Numpad) would allow you to have individual members temporarily break until pressed again, for example if you want to have them strike out at a target.

 For formations other than the one you're leading, you'd be able to change them in the command interface at the cost of a command point. Speaking of which, something else that'd make the leadership tree more valuable is a skill that defines how many ships you can have in a given formation.

Point of this is with the escort command, mixed groups of ships with loadouts and fields of fire that complement one another are rarely in optimal positions to take advantage of it. When leading strike groups of frigates for example, you'll also get ships managing to get cut off from you, or being too aggressive and getting themselves overloaded or killed.

General Discussion / Re: In-battle CR Timer - Why It's Bad
« on: June 26, 2016, 01:50:13 AM »
I've only read through the OP, and I disagree. If kiting is how you want to play it, sure, but I just see it as this:
soloing is basically just exploiting the ai's slightly deficient force-estimation capabilities and the current absurdly powerful nature of player skills. i don't think it should be catered to. it's a fleet combat game dammit.

CR, deployment costs etc. help link together the context of each tactical battle with overall "strategy". In its current form I love it, probably wouldn't enjoy the game as much without it.
That's not to say there's no room for improvement - CR encompasses both how well the ships' systems are maintained, and the morale and ability of their crews - I'd prefer to see those separated, with crew experience defining the flat rate of CR degradation and its cap, with morale as a modifier. The more experienced the crew, the less both positive and negative events influence their morale and therefore the more stable their ship's CR is. Backing away from the battle would allow their morale and therefore the ship's CR to recover, the rate of CR recovery being defined by morale and experience. The ship taking hull damage during battle would reduce its maximum CR throughout the battle, while crew deaths would do the same for morale.

What's behind idea is this: The stress on both crew and the ship's systems isn't uniform throughout the course of a battle. The chance of malfunctions and overall performance should be more influenced by events (Damage, crew death) than time. If you haemorrhage 80% of your crew during a fight, the enemy don't even need to cause any more damage because the remaining crew will be stretched thin across its systems, in addition to being less efficient because of the demoralisation caused by their buddies dying. If you've been in a knife-fight for an hour straight, the ship's systems will be under constant stress and will mechanically fail from time to time, but if you've been scoring victories throughout, your crew will stay on top of it, especially if this is their 100th battle. So in other words, if you're fighting conservatively you can maintain CR indefinitely, and if you're being reckless and aggressive, or biting off more than you can proverbially chew, you will expend CR depending on your crew's experience, size and morale.

Couple "little" things that'd have to be changed/added - Rather than CR having thresholds for malfunction chances, those chances would scale dynamically with CR. Even at 99% you might lose an engine for a few seconds, but it'd be extremely unlikely and fixed quickly.
You'd also have to be able to assign the crew of a ship, ie filling your best ships with as many elites as you have, then veteran, etc relegating your least experienced crew to non-combat ships for example.
You should also be able to prioritise which systems your crew will work on, for example if I set engines at high priority and most of my weapons low, engine malfunctions will be less likely and fixed quicker while the inverse is true for those weapons.

I might make a more detailed post about this proposed system later because I haven't really got it all sorted out in my head yet, nor did I really articulate it well.

Oh, since phase ships have been mentioned - I bloody hate the things, it feels like the only time I can get a clean kill on them is if the AI makes a mistake.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21]