Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1531

Suggestions / Re: asteroid mining

« on: May 30, 2016, 08:55:03 PM »

I have been wanting in-battle obstacles. Not just terrain but actual obstacles, like battlefield hulks (not just dead ships but battlefleets of dead hulks that have coalesced together, the way that they do in the actual ocean), derelict stations, super asteroids (the ones that show up on the star map because of how significant they are in size) and even up to having the background be replaced by a flat map of a planet with structures on it with like a 2d Ace Combat to represent planetary strikes.

But of course that's mostly way too out there in scope

1532

Suggestions / Re: Personality based passive skill for officers

« on: May 30, 2016, 10:38:19 AM »

Aggressive has top speed/range boost to be able to run down kiters (since aggressive by nature never kites), steady has a fire rate/max flux boost since they don't necessarily rely on kiting but will do it and will also close in for a full-on assault if the situation calls for it (max flux increases its ability to perform an alpha strike against a disarmed enemy) while the fire rate makes it more effective against a kiter that it has gotten into firing range of, and cautious has a better 0-flux speed boost/passive hard flux dissipation (both of which aren't actually useful for kiting since that's all cautious does, putting the emphasis less on *** munchkining and more on using cautious for close support/light long range assault/alpha striking above its weight grade).
Boom, all three are done to make kiting (which is way too heavy on the game's gameplay style preference meta whatever I just got bored of this sentence you know what I mean) less important while also making the three personalities distinct. PLUS, because I'm brilliant; timid gets a deployment cr penalty reduction and a garanteed cr recovery bonus post-battle (like you get when you win a battle and force the enemy to retreat) at 85% hull integrity to encourage actual use of the timid personality to field utility ships in battle without them having as much of an impact on the CR efficiency of your fleet since they won't be directly contributing to sinking enemy vessels.

Of course, I then have to bring up this follow-up point; there are already skills that officers get that do most of these, so I think the problem isn't that officers should get these as passive skills since they already do, but that you don't actually like having to level officers and hope to god that they get the useful skills that you want them to, which would A) be a problem for alex to maybe consider and B) be something you might wanna bring up with the fine gentlemen at the console command mod to see if there wouldn't be an easy way for them to implement a simple fix for you so you can enjoy the game more without having to grind for useful officers (since I can't seem to make sense of how to use the commands to get officers like this either)

1533

Modding / Re: Mod Request: No Shields

« on: May 28, 2016, 10:51:03 PM »

Or you could mod the shield bypass mod onto every ship that has a shields if you want to maintain vanilla's established balance curve

1534

Suggestions / Re: Separating Skills

« on: May 28, 2016, 10:48:46 PM »

That kind of leveling is boring and doesn't match up well with the hullmod acquisition skills.
Like, there's a place for it but I'm pretty sure it's just on top of the leveling that there already is (like in the Extra Systems mod)

1535

General Discussion / Re: Combat Readiness needs tweaking

« on: May 28, 2016, 01:05:16 PM »

There *is* indeed a lower difficulty setting you can pick when starting a new campaign, that will both make combat easier, and result in more supplies being dropped as loot, which should help manage costs.

Actually could we possibly get an option for a less severe campaign (the CR stuff) that doesn't touch combat itself? I don't like toned down combat

1536

Suggestions / Re: Dumb Idea

« on: May 28, 2016, 03:43:56 AM »

You could still have carriers. Missile slot fighters don't regenerate in combat at all, carriers do regenerate them. It would just require a slight rework to make carriers line up with the new mechanic.
And, as for the whole fighters being more powerful than drones, A) few ships have anything more than small missile slots and as I mentioned you could just restrict small missile slots to low-tech fighters like the talon or broadsword, and there'd only be one per slot. So it's not really comparable to a drone bay. A drone bay is a whole bay of drones that are easily replaced and come out in swarms, whereas the fighters would essentially just be one or two fighters essentially strapped to the outside of a ship and are gone once they get shot down, which would be quickly if not fielded properly.

Actually, why am I defending this?!

EDIT: And in case anyone's actually interested this idea really came from SPAZ, fielding a combat Raven (like a larger, regular-frigate-size kite) with a quad of just-barely-smaller fighters strapped to it and a cloak generator alone into missions that were way past my power level. It was really fun

1537

Bug Reports & Support / Re: PD weapons can force suicidal AI behaviour

« on: May 27, 2016, 11:17:31 PM »

ALEX, I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS IN ONE OF MY EMAILS. CAN WE PLEASE ASSIGN OUR SECOND-IN-COMMAND SO WE CAN CHANGE THE FLAGSHIP'S AUTOPILOT TO CAUTIOUS OR AGGRESSIVE IF WE WANT?

1538

Suggestions / Dumb Idea

« on: May 27, 2016, 11:04:02 PM »

My fun dumb idea: integrate missiles and fighters into the same weapon slot. Give fighters the inverse size/alpha strike potential curve that missiles have. Where missiles have basically all types of missiles available at all sizes and merely upgrade in re-usability, have the fighters have a flat re-usability at all sizes (one fighter for one slot) but upgrade in tech levels at increasing mount sizes (no shielded mobile dual atropos wreckers for lashers)
Hear me out but don't take me seriously; take missiles and make them cost supplies and combat readiness to rearm after and before combat like fighters do (which makes sense and balances *** missiles without having to change how they behave in combat), and take fighters and make them instead of a part of the fleet a part of a ship's armament. Let's face it; because missiles have so few sustainable-fire options, on most setups they wind up being space fillers that aren't actually part of the ship's central load-out. Instead of just throwing in new, reload-able missiles just for the sake of giving sustainable options (and thus fudging up the overpowering, use-it-and-lose-it but also intercept-able status that missiles have), just make individual fighters mountable on missile slots who control the same way drones do (except for the fact that whatever mix you have they act as a singular wing).
It would give a much better feel of having a pair or two of fighters escorting a ship, give a bit more agency over their actions (you can recall them if they need to be within your ship's defenses for survival, and then send them back out on free-roam to chase down an enemy if need be), and broaden out some options for ships. Like giving a close assault sunder the chance to drag a fleeing frigate back to it by forcing it to contend with a pair of wasps digging at its engines as it attempts to get away. Or giving an ultra strike dual-atropos strike kite either a broadsword to lead against a target's shields or a talon to follow up against a target's blown armor after a strike without the need to waste a high explosives payload on hull.

Thoughts, guys? What neato loadouts would you guys try out if Alex just suddenly made this weird change?

1539

Suggestions / Non-static Fighter Rendezvous

« on: May 27, 2016, 10:13:20 PM »

Battles get way too big for the static fighter rendezvous to not be a drain on resources and being able to hold back wings of fighters until they're ready to have a hope of making it through an enemy formation long enough to do any damage is critical to their usefulness in large engagements. That's why I think you should be able to flag ships as safe-havens for fighters-- basically a "escort" command that only affects partial wings that has a replacement in the process of being made or on the way to the wing so that the wing can stay on the front, of use but also largely out of harm's way until it's back to full strength. Basically I would match my timid carrier with a cautious close support ship of some sort and then always give that ship the FOB flag so that the fighters will remain on the front unless destroyed, damaged or out of ammo while also providing that ship with a mild buffer against getting rushed down by an interceptor.
Alternatively, now that I think of it, fighters maybe should do that on their own-- seek out a ship with a cautious officer that has a straight line between him and the carrier without a huge risk of being flanked at any moment and use him as if he were the carrier for any fighters of a wing that don't actually need to go to the carrier.
I just don't like the static fighter orders, they're kind of useless in 99% of battles.

OH and make fighters treat their escort group as a wing for use of the rendezvous command-- so if I field a wing of broadswords with an escort of reapers who has an escort of talons (so that they hit an enemy ship in the right order). As is, if the broadsword wing gets broken the fighter group acts the right way-- pulling back to rendezvous point until back to full strength again, but if the reaper wing gets shot down or emptied of critical ammo and needs to hit a carrier, the fighters its escorting should recognize that their fighter escort is heading back to the carrier and that therefor one of the wings in their fighter group is going to be waiting at the rendezvous so the whole group should so that they don't lose fighters for no reason.
Maybe if in the future you rework fleet mechanics in general or just revamp how fighters are handled on a meta level (FIGHTER OFFICERS FIGHTER OFFICERS FIGHTER OFFICERS) whether or not a wing is considered to be critical (the broadswords or reapers in my scenario who are needed for any of the other fighters to be useful) or supportive (like my talons in the scenario who are just there to cheaply throw in more power on top of what the criticals are doing) could be made something the player has some agency on. Because fighters are very close to being a legitimate threat of their own, but without the ability to focus their power it kind of makes them little more than background noise for the most part

1540

Suggestions / Re: Vent Time (as a hull stat)

« on: May 14, 2016, 01:39:32 AM »

You do not get Resistant Flux Conduits instead of vents.  You get them when vents are maxed.

And I'm saying that if Alex doesn't like that maxed vents is considered norm then he should cut back on the hullmod that could be a horizontal style-changer to get variants away from the min maxed assault builds and into stuff a touch more specialized but are just a second and less efficient way to get more vents if you're out of vent space

1541

Suggestions / Re: Stuck in an Empty System? Not enough ships to scuttle for fuel?!? Try...

« on: May 14, 2016, 01:34:12 AM »

Another thought; pirate vultures would make dead systems less unwinnable. make wiring into coms to broadcast an actual SOS alerts A) everybody nearby (in hyperspace like youre sensor bursting out of each jump point and out of neighboring sectors comms) who may take offense to you *** with coms in their space or whatever you were doing if you did so without transponders, B) nearby Pirates and enemies and C) anyone who isn't hostile will be out to extort. So first of all you wind up having to wait, draining cr and straining supplies, makes you take relations hits if you're doing something you shouldn't have (like killing allies transponder off) and then you are either hit by raiders or extortionists, being forced to decide whether or not the price offered for fuel and supplies (with skyrocketed prices) isn't worth the chance of being overwhelmed by the next pirate force.
Oh and unless the pirates are vengeful and have a hit out on you, the pirates you get attacked by are weaker than normal, more aggressive against fleets they can't take/quicker to merely maintain contact after a loss to join the next fresh force rather than flee and carrying little extra fuel and supplies to account for the fact that they're actually operating in dead systems or are dead-spaxe vultures

1542

Suggestions / Re: Vent Time (as a hull stat)

« on: May 13, 2016, 06:11:20 PM »

It doesn't tho, I've sat down and tested it, firing off three clarent from a harbinger and venting immediately with coils is slower than spending the OP coils needs on just vents, which puts coils in the same category as the distributor which I feel feeds into the player-only exploitable problem of extreme high-end play that Alex mentions in his last point

1543

General Discussion / Re: Lorewise, phase should probably would also have higher burn value from time warp

« on: May 13, 2016, 04:50:57 PM »

Oh, uh. Probably a bad idea to keep the phase on. That's how you burn out coils. Do you even know what those cost to replace? Jeez.

I regularly have it shot by the enemy tho...

But how can they shoot coils that are phased? O.o

1544

Suggestions / Re: Stuck in an Empty System? Not enough ships to scuttle for fuel?!? Try...

« on: May 13, 2016, 03:53:02 PM »

Not the command pod, but a Hermes or a Kite. It would give non-combatant non-freight-efficient small frigates some use

1545

Suggestions / Re: Vent Time (as a hull stat)

« on: May 13, 2016, 03:49:21 PM »

Are resistant coils actually good? Every time I sit down to min max vent-dependant ships I find that the OP cost of the hullmod doesn't give as much vent time as plain vents do which I don't feel is right, it just makes it another distributor but with fewer use-cases. Like, the fact that resistant requires active use and a dropping of all defenses should make it more OP efficient than it's passive cousins, vents and distributor