Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

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 - Morgan Rue

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Mods / Re: [0.65.2a] Seeker v0.1 - Prototype (06/06/2015)
« on: November 22, 2016, 01:21:39 PM »
Waiting for exploration mechanics before you release your exploration mechanics? :P

Suggestions / Re: Raiding and Combat
« on: November 22, 2016, 01:12:12 PM »
It can be messy if both sides decide to raid each others soft targets.  You would have multiple fights within one encounter.  Fight one, resolve main conflict.  Two, resolve player vs. enemy soft targets.  Three, resolve enemy vs. player soft targets.  Four, kill survivors.

This idea may not work very well against players like me who deploy one ship to kill the entire enemy fleet.  Enemy that would try to raid my ships behind my lone ship gets to deal with my entire fleet except the flagship I just deployed.  (I have ten more in reserve.)  I could ignore the enemy warships first and raid the soft targets alone, but since warships have better loot, not to mention I can board one of them and make it mine, I probably would kill the more lucrative warships first, then the soft targets to get a little more xp and loot, and leave no survivors.

Yeah, it doesn't really fit the way you play the game right now Megas. If you are holding a larger power of ships in reserve than the AI has total, the AI should not attempt to raid(unless they are suicidal, like Luddic Path perhaps). It could get very messy with a large number of combats, but in normal situations, you and the AI should not be raiding at the same time. Preferably, the AI would not attempt to raid if you are raiding/"normal" AI should not attempt to raid. Also, if all ships are deployed, which should be the case if an AI fleet is raiders, raiding would not be an option. Perhaps a failed raid would force an immediate retreat to avoid silly numbers of combats? Eh, thats a bad idea. Hopefully, the CR loss would be enough to discourage silly numbers of engagements.

Suggestions / Re: Raiding and Combat
« on: November 22, 2016, 12:39:50 PM »
if you implemented the rear-guard raiding (which is what I'm gonna call it), you could make it so that if you send ships to burn through to the enemy's back lines, any enemy ship that retreats gets added into the following combat engagement as a reinforcement, so if you skipped the combat fleet fleet almost entirely to try to hit their freighters and you don't even try to fight their front line then you'll wind up in the middle of their entire fleet in the next engagement, with their freighters in front of you and their entire combat line behind you, barreling down on you teeth-out

That is exactly the idea. Except all the ships that were deployed in the combat will give chase after your raiders and come in as "reinforcements" from behind you, not just the ones that retreat. Maybe the ones that retreat can be there waiting for you. EDIT: Perhaps you could leave ships behind and have your second in command attempt to keep the enemy occupied during raid operations.

Suggestions / Re: Raiding and Combat
« on: November 22, 2016, 12:37:49 PM »
It wouldn't be so much as bypass as actively avoid. Any combat ships you didn't deploy will still be there to back up your merchant ships, and the ones you did deploy will come back at full burn a short while behind the raiders with all of their peak performance time to chase the raiders. I do see what DownTheDrain is saying with phase ships and some select others that are very fast being able to exploit this a bit too much. I was thinking the decreased peak performance time(I'm bad and used the wrong term earlier) would help offset this. Perhaps this would need to be more severe on ships with delicate machinery, which all the phase ships have, although that might not be necessary because they already lose CR faster than other ships. It would definitely have take CR from the raiders as if they had participated in normal combat operations before starting the raid. Perhaps the ships deployed could come in almost as fast as the raiders unless they were damaged/partially disabled in some way beforehand. Perhaps also the zone to start a raid could be smaller than the entire retreat side of the enemy.

Suggestions / Raiding and Combat
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:28:32 AM »
Currently, if you want to "raid" a supply or merchant fleet, you have to deal with all of the combat ships before you have a chance to get at the freighters. It would be cool if you could try to avoid the enemy combat ships by going around them and "retreating" on their "side" of the map. This would turn in to a "retreat" event with whatever made it across with chasing whatever the enemy didn't deploy, with whatever they did deploy in hot pursuit. Perhaps the ships that made it across would take a reasonably severe max deployment time penalty(EDIT: I mean peak performance time). It would also be cool if the AI could do this to you.

This could also be used to expand trading/player merchant gameplay. Instead of having trade disruptions directly affect markets, have them affect "trade routes" between markets. Spawn some pirate or faction sponsored raiders, have those raiders preform "raids" on merchant/supply fleets going on those trade routes. For the player, this means shipping goods between these two places temporarily is profitable, if they take the direct route with the risks that come from the raiders. If they go around, significantly higher fuel used can make it unprofitable, or hyperspace storms and maybe perhaps other deep hyperspace foes can make it equally dangerous. These things should be about as common and reliable as bounties if possible, and should only occur on hyperspace routes.

Perhaps bounties could also be worked into this, with big names with bounties on their heads raiding the trade routes, or with factions giving bounty for enemy ships killed on said trade routes. This could even go the other way, with a faction you are aligned with putting a bounty on all enemy merchant and supply vessels going on a trade route. This could also lead to interesting things with diplomacy and accusations of privateering.

Basically, make it reasonable to play as a merchant and raid other factions fleets.

General Discussion / Re: Fighter Rework and Missiles.
« on: November 21, 2016, 01:16:13 PM »
Honestly, if smaller fighters just had the capacity to avoid longer ranged incoming fire, which they do and simply don't use, fighters could be effective strike forces. Also, you aren't supposed to be able to overwhelm most targets with only fighters. Fighters are supposed to be there to take advantage of other ships with flanking, to support and augment attacks made by other ships and to escort and protect valuable targets. Yes PD, specifically Flak and Dual Flak, is definitely too strong and is capable of shredding most missiles/fighters. Hopefully this will be changed in the next patch.

Blog Posts / Re: Fighter Redesign
« on: November 19, 2016, 12:14:54 PM »
Idea for fighters, limiting what ships can mount what fighters, and making significant differences between dedicated and combat carriers. Instead of doing something like "These are small fighters, they can be used in small hangars", limit the OP that each launch bay can use for fighters. Say you have a Shepherd(I know this ship isn't going to have an actual launch bay, but for the sake of this example I assume it does). It doesn't make sense for that ship to be able to use and maintain high end "big" fighters, like a Xyphos heavy fighter wing. But it does have the capacity to launch and maintain "small" fighters, like the Borer mining drones it comes equipped with. So lets have a limit on the OP in fighters that the Shepherd can equip, something like 2 or 3. So the Shepherd can equip any fighter in its launch bay, as long as that fighter costs 3 or less OP.

Lets look at the Condor. Its a relatively low tech ship, so it probably shouldn't be able to use something as advanced as Xyphos heavy fighters or Trident bombers. But it is a dedicated carrier, so it should be able to use a good number of fighters, even if it is the smallest carrier(2nd in this example to Shepherd). So it has 2-3 launch bays, but those bays can only equip fighters that cost less than 3-4 OP, things like Piranhas, Broadswords, Mining Pods, Talons, and maybe even Thunders, Daggers, Warthogs and Gladius, but definitely not Tridents. Maybe it even has one "bigger" launch bay and one "smaller" launch bay. So the "bigger" launch bay can use fighters that cost 5 or less OP, while the smaller one can only use fighters that cost 2 or less OP.

Mods / Re: [0.7.2a] The Knights Templar 0.9.6
« on: November 19, 2016, 11:36:16 AM »
Wait, this mod is currently busted?  ??? I'm running Templars and a bunch of other stuff(Nexerelin + faction mods + some utility mods) and its working mostly fine. Only issue is if I run the game for too long, like 3+ hours, it starts to get unstable, but I think that is mostly because I have too many mods active and not enough memory space. I'm running Templars version 0.9.5h on Starsector 0.7.2a-RC3.

full mod list
Dynasector 1.0.4, ApproLight 0.4.6a(f1)*, Combat Chatter 1.6.1, Diable Avionics 1.63, Interstellar Imperium 1.12.1, LazyLib 2.1, Nexerelin 0.7.5c, Simulator Overhaul 1.2b, The Knights Templar 0.9.5h, Torchships 1.0, ZZ GraphicsLib 1.0.2
*Is this outdated? I started in v7a. I think this mod is at least partially responsible for the instability.

Suggestions / Re: More PD
« on: October 21, 2016, 05:24:23 PM »
We have several PD options, but they tend to get overshadowed by flak. Also, all small non-PD weapons can attempt to be PD weapons with IDPAI.

Suggestions / Re: LRPD needs help!
« on: October 16, 2016, 05:17:39 PM »
For a (semi-)dedicated point defense ship that is supposed to be taking out missiles and fighters from long ranges and covering for other ships, Tacs should generally preform better. Generally, I run Tacs and IDPAI on most of my ships, and the ones I don't run Tacs on usually have no point defense. I tend to do fleet actions more than soloing things. Oh, other people already said this, and said it better.

Suggestions / Re: LRPD needs help!
« on: October 11, 2016, 06:46:39 PM »
If you are going to make a dedicated PD boat, Tac Lasers with IPDAI and ATG would probably preform better than LRPDs, just in general. The comparison for LRPDs should not be to normal PD lasers, it should be to Tacs with IPDAI. Which, if you have at least 4/8/12/20 Tacs, is as OP efficient as LRPDs. If you are keeping IPDAI around that is, which I sure hope you do.

Suggestions / Re: Special hull mod for other vanilla factions?
« on: October 04, 2016, 09:17:17 PM »
Honestly, I think that Lions' Guard ships should have built in Solar Shielding. Yes, it doesn't do much, but it does match up with their lore and make actual use of the hull mod.
Also, Luddic Church definitely needs something to differentiate itself.

General Discussion / Re: Ideas on Transformable Ships?
« on: October 01, 2016, 11:18:37 AM »
The ship in that gif is from the Diable Avionics faction mod.

Suggestions / Re: "Strafe to cursor" toggle
« on: September 16, 2016, 03:24:26 PM »
Having a separate key that inverts behavior of strafe to cursor button would be nice.

Suggestions / Re: Aurora Balance
« on: September 16, 2016, 03:21:46 PM »
My thoughts on High Tech ships vs Low Tech ships:
High Tech ships should be faster, have better shields, more flux capacity/dissipation/venting and longer max deployment times, making them better at harassing and repeated engagements, whereas Low Tech ships have much heavier armor, worse/no shield systems and lower maneuverability, but longer range, higher initial impact and more flux efficient weapons, making them better at decisive engagements(Hegemony Doctrine) and pushing/holding locations. Low Tech ships should try to corner and crush High Tech ones while High Tech focus on repeatedly engaging and wearing down their enemies.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10